! 


«  AMEEICAIf  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION!  SOCIETY,  ^ 

g  I 

^  No.  118  Arch  Street,  PMladelpMa.  \ 

185 


LIBRA.RY 

OF  THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 
BV  820  .08  1850  "^ 

Curtis,  Thomas  Fenner,  1815- 

1872 
Communion J  the  distinction 

h^tweBT) Chr  1  s 1 1  fln  anri 


y 


COMMUNION: 


THE  DISTINCTION  BETWEEN 


CHRISTIAN  AND  CHURCH  FELLOWSHIP 


AND  BETWEEN 


COMMUNION  AND  ITS  SYMBOLS. 


"EMBRACING 


A  REVIEW   OF   THE  AEGUMENTS 


%m  Entort  Ball  ml  %m  %qM  W.  IM 


IN   FAVOR    OF 


MIXED    COMMUNION. 


BY  T.  r.  CURTIS,  A.  M. 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY,   HOWARD   COLLEGE,   ALA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

118  ARCH  STREET. 
1850. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1850,  by  the 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION   SOCIETY, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and  for  the 
Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


KING   &  BAIRD,    PRINTERS,    PHILADELPHIA. 


A. 


PREFACE. 


The  Author  of  the  following  pages  had  occasion, 
in  commencing  to  prepare  a  series  of  Lectures  on  the 
Constitution,  Government,  and  Discipline  of  our 
Churches,  for  the  benefit  of  some  young  brethren 
studying  for  the  Ministry,  to  re-examine  the  Mixed 
Communion  Controversy,  and  especially  the  argu- 
ments of  the  celebrated  Robert  Hall.  Some  two  or 
three  years  previously,  while  laboring  as  a  Pastor, 
he  had  delivered  a  series  of  discourses  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Communion,  which  had  been  kindly  received. 
These,  re-written  and  re-arranged,  form  in  fact  the 
basis  of  the  first  two  parts  of  the  present  work.  The 
third  and  fourth  parts,  are  the  application  of  the 
principles  before  established  to  the  arguments  of 
Robert  Hall,  and  also  of  Baptist  W.  Noel. 

The  chief  point  in  which  this  volume  difi*ers  from 
most  which  have  preceded  it  on  the  subject,  is  that 
instead  of  attempting  to  defend  a  rule,  it  aims  to  es- 
tablish a  principle.  Most  of  our  writers  have  sought 
chiefly  to  vindicate  the  rule  that  no  unbaptized  per- 
son is  qualified  for  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  object  of 
the  present  work  is  to  exhibit   the  principle  that  the 


IV  PREFACE. 

Lord's  Supper  is  a  symbol  of  Church  relations  he- 
tween  those  luho  unite  in  its  celehratio7i.  The  advan- 
tage of  this  course  is,  that  whereas  the  rule  is  nega- 
tive, a  principle  is  essentially  positive.  One  true 
principle  will  lie  at  the  basis  of  many  rules.  A  rule 
bounds  an  idea  but  on  one  side  ;  a  principle  implies 
its  own  limit  on  all  sides.  A  rule  restricts,  a  princi- 
ple establishes. 

It  w^as  because  the  writer  had  felt  the  want  of  some 
popular  exposition,  exhibiting  in  a  less  negative  man- 
ner the  whole  subject  of  the  present  Essay,  that  he 
was  induced  originally  to  deliver,  and  now  publishes 
these  views.  The  most  simple,  comprehensive,  and 
conclusive  plan,  even  so  far  as  the  restrictive  side  is 
concerned,  is  to  maintain  that  positive  principle, 
which  comprehends  all  the  rules,  and  presents  the  sub- 
ject in  its  Avholeness  to  the  observation  of  the  candid 
inquirer.  The  Author  is  convinced  that  no  doubt  can 
long  remain  after  an  attentive  consideration  of  this 
subject,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes  visible 
Church  relations  as  existing  between  those  who  unite 
in  it.  To  such  as  admit  the  primitive  independence 
of  the  Churches  of  Christ,  which  is  a  point  now  uni- 
versally conceded  by  the  ablest  investigators  of 
Church  History  in  Germany,  the  rest  will  follow  as  a 
necessary  consequence.  Where  these  relations  do  not 
subsist,  as  they  certainly  do  not  Avhere  different  de- 
nominations are  concerned,  the  symbol  of  such  rela- 
tions must  be  inappropriate. 

It  is  because,  in  modern  times,  we  do  not  feel  the 
warmth  of  that  peculiar  affection  which  existed  origi- 


PREFACE.  V 

nally  among  those  who  were  members  of  the  same 
Chui'ch  or  family  of  Christians,  that  our  practice  in 
regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  symbolized  it, 
comes  to  be  called  in  question. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  work  takes  for  granted, 
that  the  views  of  our  denomination  on  the  subject  of 
baptism  are  correct.  To  have  pursued  any  other 
course,  would  have  occupied  too  large  a  field.  The 
writer  has  aimed,  as  much  as  possible,  to  narrow  the 
controversy  to  the  point  at  issue.  Nothing,  however, 
has  been  taken  for  granted,  that  was  not  freely  con- 
ceded by  the  most  skilful  opponent  of  our  views  on 
this  subject,  Robert  Hall.  This  volume  is  not  sent 
forth  into  the  world  to  provoke  controversy.  It  is 
written  chiefly  for  members  of  our  own  Churches,  and 
for  those  pious  persons,  who,  convinced  of  the  general 
truth  of  our  sentiments,  as  to  the  mode  and  subjects 
of  baptism,  are  yet  troubled  with  scruples  in  regard 
to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

To  his  brethren  in  the  ministry,  the  Author  offers 
a  word  of  explanation  as  to  his  motives,  and  his  hopes. 
The  substance  of  this  work  originated,  not  in  any 
special  circumstances  of  controversy,  but  in  the  regu- 
lar course  of  ministerial  labors.  It  was,  therefore,  sim- 
ply to  present  to  a  Church  of  our  own  denomination, 
with  a  congregation  often  increased  by  other  evangel- 
ical Christians,  and  well  established  in  Divine  truth, 
not  only  clear  and  settled  views  upon  a  subject  of  con- 
troversy, but  also  such  thoughts  as  a  Pastor  would 
naturally  desire  to  present  in  all  affection,  on  such  a 
subject   as   that  of    Communion ;    and    to    promote 


VI  PREFACE. 

some  of  the  very  highest  and  noblest  of  all  the  rela- 
tions of  a  Christian  congregation — Church  fellow- 
ship, love  to  fellow  Christians,  and  above  all,  Com- 
munion with  Christ.  Nor  is  it  without  the  hope  of 
entering  into,  and  silently  assisting  the  labors  of 
Pastors,  in  this  unobtrusive  manner,  that  the  Author 
issues  this  book  to  the  world.  Hence,  he  has  not 
been  careful  to  prune  out  some  paragraphs,  especi- 
ally in  the  first  Part,  which  might  be  spared  from  a 
mere  theological  argument. 

To  promote  love  and  true  Communion  between  all 
mankind  and  Christ ;  between  all  Christians  as  fel- 
low heirs  of  light  and  glory,  and  members  of  the 
Universal  Church  ;  between  all  who  sustain  towards 
each  other  the  solemn  and  endearing  relation  of  bro- 
therhood in  the  same  Christian  Church,  is  the  simple 
object  which  the  Author  has  had  in  view.  And  if 
this  volume  can  in  any  measure  set  these  several  re- 
lations in  a  clearer  light,  and  restore  that  fervor  of 
primitive  love,  that  strong  (not  high)  Church  feeling 
that  the  study  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  earliest 
records  of  the  Christian  Church  shows  to  have 
existed  ;  we  are  convinced  that  the  greatest  difficulty 
to  the  correct  understanding  of  the  subject  w^ill  have 
been  overcome.  Our  chief  object  will  assuredly  have 
been  accomplished.  T.  F.  C. 

Howard  College,  Sepfember  27,  1849. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


1.  Distinction  between  the  Literal,  and  Figurative  or  Symbolic  use  of 
the  term  Communion.  2.  An  eiTor  here  hes  at  the  basis  of  much  of 
the  reasoning  on  this  subject.     3.  Division  of  the  subject, 13 

PART  I. 

IN   WHAT    COMMUNION    CONSISTS. 
CHAPTER  I. 

MEANING  OF  TEEMS. 

1.  Literal  meaning  of  Communion  and  KooviovCa-  2.  Sense  of  Com- 
munion and  Fellowship  compared.  3.  A  closer  Communion  the  great 
want  of  the  age.     4.  The  Objects  of  Communion  classified, 19 

CHAPTER  II. 

COMMUNION  WITH  CHRIST  THE  HEAD  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

1 .  How  far  this  embraces  Communion  with  the  whole  Godhead.  2.  Its 
powerful  effect  upon  the  heart  and  life.  3.  The  great  clue  to  the 
labyrinth  of  life.  4.  The  vital  force  and  moving  power  of  religious 
action.     5.  Illustration, 22 

CHAPTER  III.     ■  • 

COMMUNION    "WITH   THE    CHURCH    UNIVERSAL:     WITH    THE    SAINTS     IN 
GLORY. 

1.  Communion  with  the  Church  Universal — its  two  divisions.  2.  The 
Christian  communes  ivith  the  Saints  in  glory.  3.  There  was  much  of 
this  in  primitive  times.  4.  How  it  may  be  enjoyed  now.  5.  The 
spirit  of  the  age  in  regard  to  it.  6.  The  Saints  in  glory  have  Com 
munion  with  us.     7.  Spiritual  influences.     8.  Practical  effects,   ..••2'^ 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

COMMUKION    WITH    CHRISTIANS    ON    EARTH. 

1.  Distinction  between  Communion  and  its  Sjmibols,  repeated.  2.  Com- 
munion with  Christians  on  earth,  of  two  kinds.  8.  The  distinction 
illustrated.  4.  The  distinction  shown  by  the  two  senses  of  the  word 
Church.  5.  Quotation  from  Robert  Hall.  6.  The  error  of  Mr.  Hall's 
opinion,  that  a  particular  visible  Church  differs  from  the  Invisible, 
only  as  a  part  from  the  whole.  7.  The  true  distinction  shown  b}-- 
Neander, 34 

CHAPTER  V. 

FELLOVrSHIP   ■^\^TH    CHRISTIANS   AS   SUCH,  AND    NOT   AS   MEMBERS    OF 
ANY   PARTICULAR    VISIBLE    CHURCH. 

1.  The  New  Commandment  explained.  2.  This  Communion  may  exist 
apart  from  all  symbols.     3.  It  need  not  interfere  with  denominational 

'  preferences.  4.  Baptist  pi-inciples  most  favorable  to  Christian  fellow- 
ship.   5.  How  to  promote  it, 41 

CHAPTER  VI. 

CHURCH    COMMUNION,   OR    FELLOWSHIP. 

1.  Its  nature.  2.  Its  proper  subjects.  3.  The  two  objects  of  it.  4.  De- 
signed to  promote  tlie piety  of  the  members.  5.  Unreasonable  expecta- 
tions in  regard  to  it.  6.  Evil  effects  of  such  expectations.  7.  Modem 
and  Primitive  Churches  compared.  8.  We  need  a  fellowship  more 
sympathizing  in  temporal  matters.  9.  Church  fellowship  ought  to 
include  a  complete  vindication  of  character.  10.  It  should  pi-omote 
the  proprieties^of  Christian  intercourse.  11.  Church  fellowship  as  an 
instrument  of  converting  sinners.  12.  A  proper  Esprit  clu  Corps. 
13.  Its  power.  14.  The  duty  of  joining  a  Church.  15.  Siimmary  of 
Part  I. 48 

PART  II. 

THE    SYMBOLS   OF    COMMUNION. 
CHAPTER  I. 

NATURE    OF    SYMBOLS. 

1.  Definition  of  a  symbol.    2.  Simple  symbols.    3.  Complex  sj^mbols. 

4.  Those  only  to  be  used  when  all  the  relations  are  as  represented. 

5.  Division  of  the  subject, 65 


CONTENTS.  ix 

CHAPTER  II. 

SYMBOLS    OF   COMMUNION    WITH     CHRIST. 

1.  These  are  various,  but  two  are  chief.  2.  Baptism,  the  first  of  these 
a  simple  symbol.  3.  Ground  assumed  in  regard  to  Baptism.  4.  Bap- 
tism, a  symbolic  burial.  5.  Baptism,  a  putting  on  of  Christ. — Optatus. 
6.  The  Apostle's  idea.  7.  Importance  of  practically  uniting  the  sym 
bol  and  thing  signified.  8.  Baptism,  a  pledge — contains  a  reciprocal 
assurance.  9.  Importance  and  beauty  of  this  symbolic  garment. 
10.  The  Lord's  Supper,  a  symbol  of  frequent  recurrence.  11.  A 
fresh  acknowledgment  of  the  baptismal  profession — instituted  con- 
nexion between  them.  12.  A  complex  symbol.  13.  A  symbol  of 
communion  with  Christ.  U.  Meaning  of  sffn.  15.  A  re-afiirmation  of 
the  baptismal  vow.  16.  Contains  a  reciprocal  assurance  of  our 
acceptance, 67 

CHAPTER  III. 

symbols    OF   christian    COMMUNION. 

1.  Symbols  imperfect  and  partial.  2.  They  change  in  their  symbolic 
character.  3.  Various  symbols  specified.  4.  The  same  original  term 
used  for  Contributions, 79 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    SYMBOLS    OF     CHURCH    COMMUNION. 

1.  Kiss  of  charity — feasts  of  charity — i-ight  hand  of  fellowship.  2.  The 
Lord's  Supper — in  what  sense  the  Communion.  3.  A  symbol  of 
Church  relations.  4.  Is  more  than  a  recognition  of  Christian  character. 
5.  Is  a  Church  ordinance.  6.  Not  a  mere  symbol  of  Communion  with 
the  Church  Universal.  7.  Nor  with  all  saints  on  earth.  8.  But  with 
those  with  whom  we  celebrate.  9.  Illustrated  by  the  Passover,  and 
institution  of  the  Supper.  10.  Independence  of  Churches.  11.  The 
early  Christians  esteemed  the  Lord's  Supper  a  Church  ordinance. 
12.  It  is  not  to  be  used  where  there  are  not  Church  relations.  13.  The 
Church  an  executive,  not  a  legislative  body.  14.  Baptist  Churches 
cannot  be  charged  with  want  of  charity.  15.  The  Lord's  Supper 
belongs  to  all  the  members  of  a  Church  which  celebrates  it.  16.  In- 
justice of  debarring  infants  in  Pedobaptist  Churches, 83 

CHAPTER  V. 

OCCASIONAL    COMMUNION. 

1.  Meaning  of  the  phrase.    2.  Two  classes.    3.  Occasional  participation 
with  members  of  other  Churches  of  the  same  denomination.     4.  With 
1* 


X"  CONTENTS. 

Christians  of  no  visible  Church,  and  of  other  denominations.  5.  The 
difference  is  only  as  to  occasional  participation.  6.  Shown  from 
Methodist  Book  of  Discipline.  7.  From  the  Pres.  Con.  of  Faith. 
8.  From  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. — Not  acted  up  to.  9.  Any  other  plan 
of  Chui-ch  membership  must  destroy  all  denominations.  10.  This  ad- 
mitted by  Robert  Hall.     1 1 .  Must  silence  Truth,  if  in  the  minority. 

12.  Baptist  Churches    originated    in    the    desire    of    Pedobaptists. 

13.  Occasional  Communion  must  be  regulated  by  general  princi- 
ples. 14.  Methodist  and  Presbyterian  principles  applied  to  this 
case, 95 

CHAPTER  VI. 

OBJECTIOKS    CONSIDERED. 

1.  These  Objections  stated.  2.  "  It  is  only  the  mode  of  Baptism  that 
prevents  us  from  uniting  with  Pedobaptists,"  considered.  3.  "  That 
we  do  not  consider  the  Baptism  of  Pedobaptists  as  valid,"  considered. 
4.  This  true.  5.  But  not  the  only  ground  for  our  not  uniting  with 
them.  6.  "That  w^e  unchurch  Pedobaptists,"  considered.  7.  The 
Lord's  Supper  not  designed  to  express  Church  relations  as  subsisting 
between  different  Churches.  8.  Custom  of  Baptist  Associations  un- 
churches ourselves  as  much  as  other  denominations.  9.  Each  Church 
entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of  its  own  fellowship.  10.  The  eft'ect  of 
the  lack  of  a  valid  Baptism  in  unchurching,  considered.  1 1.  Differ- 
ent significations  of  the  word  Church.  12.  Those  unbaptized  cannot 
form  regular  Churches.  13.  Our  difference  as  to  Baptism  chiefly 
keeps  us  from  affiliating.  14.  Ought  our  Churches  to  make  Baptism 
necessary  to  their  membership  ?  15.  This  the  Primitive  plan,  con- 
ceded by  Robert  Hall.  16.  Importance  of  keeping  the  ordinances 
as  delivered  to  us.  17.  Ought  the  rule  of  Church  Membership  to 
bo  extended  to  occasional  participation  ?  18.  This  conceded  by 
Christian  writers  of  all  ages.  19.  This  is  consistent  and  charitable. 
20.  Illustration  from  American  citizenship, il2 

CHAPTER  VII. 

REVIEW   OF    PARTS    I.    AJStD   II. 

1.  Distinction  between  Communion  and  its  Symbols.  2.  Different 
kinds  of  Communion  specified.  3.  The  Nature  of  Symbols.  4.  Dif- 
ferent Symbols  of  Communion.  5.  Symbols  of  Communion  with 
Christ,  (a)  Baptism,  (b)  Lord's  Supper.  6.  Symbols  of  Christian 
fellowship.  7.  The  Lord's  Supper  a  Symbol  of  Church  fellowship. 
8.  Further  proofs  of  this.    9.  Additional  proofs— The  Passover— -but 


CONTENTS.  Xi 

one  Altar  to  a  Church.  10.  May  it  be  used  for  other  purposes? 
11.  Robert  Hall's  "leading  position"  considered.  12.  This  confounds 
the  Visible  and  Invisible  Churches.  13.  "  Occasional  Communion." 
14.  The  case  of  other  denominations  considered.  15.  Three  objec- 
tions considered.  16.  That  we  deny  the  validity  of  their  baptisms. 
17.  That  we  unchurch  other  denominations.  18.  Our  own  posi- 
tion,   130 

PART  III. 

THE    ARGUMENTS   OF    ROBERT    HALL    CONSIDERED. 

INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

Classification  of  Mr.  Hall's  writings  on  the  subject  of  Communion,-  •  149 

CHAPTER  I. 

ROBERT  hall's  FIRST  ARGUMENT   CONSIDERED. 

1.  Ambiguity  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  Coriimunion.  2.  Applied  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  proves  nothing.  3.  Robert  Hall's  view  of  the  signifi- 
cation of  the  Lord's  Supper  considered.  4.  His  illustration  of  chil- 
dren refusing  to  eat  at  the  same  table.  5.  Symbolic  feasts.  6.  The 
anguish  of  separating  from  Christian  friends  at  the  Lord's  Supper 
considered.     7.  Illustration, 152 

CHAPTER  II. 

ROBERT  hall's  SECOND  ARGUMENT  CONSIDERED. 

1.  'The  toleration  of  all  errors  consistent  with  salvation,' considered. 
2.  No  Christians  practice  thus.  3.  The  Scriptures  forbid  this  course. 
4.  Consequences  of  Robert  Hall's  views.  5.  Errors  generally  de- 
structive, may  not  be  so  in  every  case.  6.  Persons  holding  almost 
every  species  of  error  might  become  Church  officers  on  the  Mixed 
Communion  plan.  7.  The  cases  of  John  Milton  and  others.  8.  This 
system  would  permit  Roman  Catholic  priests  to  perform  their  cere- 
monies in  Baptist  Churches.— Arians.—Polygamists.  9.  Rom.  14th 
and  1 5th,  considered.  10.  The  command  to  receive,  only  applies  when 
the  individual  is  complying  with  the  whole  revealed  will  of  God 
in  the  matter  in  hand.  II.  The  case  stated  in  another  manner  by 
Robert  Hall,  considered.  12.  Each  Church  must  be  allowed  to  de- 
clare its  own  terms  of  Communion.  13.  Why  Pedobapti?ts  should 
not  be  admitted  to  Baptist  Churches.  14.  Effects  of  Pedobaptism  as 
a  system, 160 


XU  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

ROBERT   hall's   THIRD  ARGUMENT   CONSIDERED. 

1.  Two  senses  of  the  word  Church.  2.  Assertion  of  the  Author  that 
they  '  differ  only  as  a  part  from  the  whole,'  considered.  3.  The  tnie 
distinction  destroys  his  argument.  4.  '  Those  who  commune  with 
God  fit  to  commune  with  us,'  considered.  5.  '  Presumptuously  to 
aspire  to  greater  purity  than  Christ,'  considered.  6.  The  same  rea- 
soning applied  to  the  Passover, 177 

CHAPTER  IV. 

ROBERT    hall's    FOURTH  ARGUMENT  CONSIDERED. 

I.  *The  exclusion  of  Pedobaptists  a  punishment,' considered.  2.  The 
Lord's  Supper  a  family  feast.  3.  The  Evangelical  Alliance  excom- 
municate, on  Robert  Hall's  principle.  4.  The  charge  of  excommuni- 
cating considered.  5.  Mr  Hall  would  excommunicate  all  Churches 
whose  invitation  to  Communion  he  declined.  6.  '  That  our  views 
make  the  approach  of  Pedobaptists  to  the  Lord's  Supper  criminal,' 
considered.  7.  The  difficulty  of  'Mr.  Hall's  system  on  this  point 
considered, 183 

CHAPTER  V. 

ROBERT  hall's  FIFTH    ARGUMENT    CONSIDERED. 

1.  '  The  impossibility  of  reducing  Strict  Communion  to  any  general 
principles,'  considered.  2.  The  Lord's  Table  to  be  governed  by  the 
same  rules  as  our  Church  Membership.  3.  Baptism  a  prerequisite 
to  Church  Membership,  a  rule  semper^  uhique,  et  ab  omnibus.  4.  Every 
visible  Church  must  have  some  visible  profession  of  Christianity. 
5.  Visible  Chm'ches  aggi-essive  in  their  nature.  6.  The  '  general 
principle '  of  Mixed  Communion,  considered.  7.  The  distinction 
between  tolerating  imperfection  and  endorsing  it.  8.  The  distinction 
between  errors  fundamental  and  not  fundamental,  considered.  9. 
Baptism  formerly  deemed  necessary  to  salvation,  admitted  by  Mr. 
HaU.  10.  A  further  difference  as  to  Mr.  Hall's  '  general  principle.' 
11.  Some  visible  profession  must  be  necessary  to  Church  Menber- 
ship, ■' 192 

CHAPTER  VI. 

ROBERT    hall's     SIXTH    ARGUMENT    CONSIDERED. 

1.  '  The  Impolicy  of  Strict  Communion.'  2.  How  far  policy  should 
weigh,  considered.    3.  Mr.  Hall's  statement  as  to  its  impolicy.   Effects 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

of  "party,"  considered.  5.  The  comparatively  rapid  *  extension  of  sci- 
entific truths,'  considered.  6.  Distinction  between  the  extension  of 
speculative  and  practical  truths,  considered.  7.  The  speculative 
preacher  of  Baptist  sentiments  described.  8.  The  Baptist  reformer 
described.  9.  The  question  at  issue  between  Robert  Hall  and  ourselves. 
10.  The  peculiar  power  of  social  organizations.  11.  Shall  the  power  of 
the  Churches  be  applied  to  restore  the  obsolete  practice  ?  12.  Singular 
shift  of  Mr.  Hall.  13.  Practical  test  of  his  views.  14,  Comparative 
progress  of  the  Baptists  in  England  and  America.  15.  Effects  of  Bap- 
tist sentiments  on  other  denominations  in  America  and  Europe,*  •  -201 

CHAPTER  VII. 

REVIEW    OF   PART    III. 

,  Review  of  Mr.  Hall's  first  argument.  2.  Of  the  second.  3.  Of  the 
third.  4.  Of  the  fourth.  5.  Of  the  fifth.  6.  Of  the  sixth.  7.  Of  Mr. 
Hall's  "  leading  position."  8.  Mr.  Hall's  leading  position  clearly  trace- 
able back  to  the  fundamental  error  of  Popery.  9.  Counsels  of  Sir 
James  Mackintosh  to  Robert  Hall, 218 


PART  IV. 

THE   ARGUMENTS   OF  REV.  BAPTIST  W.  NOEL    ON    FREE  COMMUNION, 
CONSIDERED. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

1.  Recent  appearance  of  his  book  on  Baptism,  and  its  claims  to  general 
regard.  2.  Shortness  of  the  section  on  Commxmion.  3.  Not  many 
new  ideas,  but  in  general  follows  Mr.  Hall.  4.  Yet  some  differences 
in  method  and  spirit.     6.  Analysis  of  his  remarks, 229 

CHAPTER  I. 

MR.    NOEL'S   STATEMENT  OF   THE   QUESTION. 

1.  In  this  he  agrees  with  Robert  Hall— Regards  Pedobaptists  as  unbap 
tized — pleads  for  their  admission  as  such.  2.  Tendencies  of  this 
course — Mr.  Noel's  inconsistency.  3.  Concedes  too  much  to  the 
sincerity  with  which  Pedobaptism  is  upheld.  4.  Yet  in  effect  yields 
the  very  point  at  issue, 232 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  II. 

MR.    KOEL'S    arguments    CONSIDERED. 

I.  Argument  from  the  nature  of  things.  1.  Error  in  illustration.  2.  Con- 
founds the  Visible  Church  with  the  Invisible.  3.  Assumes  identity  of 
qualifications.  4.  Pedobaptists  are  not  disowned  as  brethren,  but  as 
unbaptized.  5.  The  Lord's  Supper  belongs  to  visible  churches. 
6.  The  question  resolves  itself  into  this,  Is  it  the  duty  of  Churches,  as 
such,  to  uphold  Christian  Baptism  ? 

II.  Arguments  from  the  Scriptures.  1.  The  main  reliance  here.  2.  (a.) 
John  13:  35,  and  17:  20,  considered.  3.  Nature  of  Christian  union. 
4.  On  whom  rests  the  blame  of  breaking  the  Visible  Church  fellow- 
ship. 5.  (5.)  Rom.  14:  1 — 7,  and  15:  7,  considered.  6.  Mistakes  and 
their  consequences.  7.  The  proper  grounds  of  Church  toleration. 
8.  The  proper  grounds  of  exclusion.  Gal.  5: 12, 1  Cor.  5:  11 — 13,  Rom. 
16:  17,  2  Thess.  3:  14,  compared  with  v.  6.  9.  Result — There  are 
other  terms  of  communion  than  such  as  are  terms  of  salvation.  10.  Prac- 
tical importance  of  this  principle.  11.  A  fundamental  distinction 
explained.  12.  (c.)  Mr.  Noel's  concessions ; — 1.  Of  an  instituted  connec- 
tion between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  2.  Of  the  close  Scrip- 
tural connection  between  Regeneration  and  Baptism, 235 

CHAPTER  in. 

MR.   NOEL'S  OBJECTIONS  TO    STRICT   COMMUNION    CONSIDERED. 

1.  These  might  be  passed  over.    2.  State  of  the  case. 

I.  Prohibitory  aspect  of  the  system. — 1.  Each  visible  Church  independ 
ent.    2.  No  conscientious  Christian  is  forbidden  to  commune  at  the 
Lord's  Table  with  those  who  hold  similar  views. 

II.  Implied  usurpation  over  conscience. — 1.  Peculiar  impropriety  of  this 
objection  from  Mr.  Noel  after  his  concessions.  2.  Supposes  two  serious 
misconceptions.    3.  Singular  reasoning.     4.  Results  to  which  it  tends. 

III.  Apparent  inconsistency. — 1.   It  is  not  real.     2.   Evidence  of  this. 

3.  The  first  Christians  worshipped  with  the  Jews  in  the  Synagogues- 

4.  Unique  relation  of  Baptism  and  the  Supper,  intuitively  felt.  5.  The 
alternative  forced  upon  us.  6.  Acknowledgment  of  Drs.  Ypeij  and 
Dermont  of  Holland.     7.  Remark  of  Andrew  Fuller.     8.  Illustrations. 

IV.  Impolicy  of  exclusiveness :  especially  where  a  doctrine  is  unpopular, 
though  true. — 1.  The  Author's  theories.  2.  They  strike  at  the  root  of 
investigation,  by  denying  its  necessity.  3.  Action  is  here  more  neces- 
sary than  investigation.  4.  Action  produces  action.  5.  Such  exem- 
plary action  does  not  diminish  spii'ituality.  Comparison  of  United 
States  and  England  shows  this.  6.  Mr.  Noel's  grand  concession.  7.  It 
amoimts  to  the  surrender  of  his  whole  argument, 250 


CONTENTS.  XV 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 


1 .  The  beai-ing  of  these  views  on  the  Churches.  2.  The  power  of  the 
Churches,  to  spread  right  views  of  the  ordinances.  3.  The  ordinances 
specially  committed  to  the  Churches.  4.  The  relative  position  of  the 
Chm-ch  and  the  Bible  to  the  world.  5.  Duty  of  the  Churches  in 
view  of  the  corruption  of  the  ordinances.  6.  Objection — '  part  to  be 
sacrificed  to  the  good  of  the  whole.'  7.  The  duty  of  Pedobaptist 
Churches— their  Baptism  a  nullity.  8.  Position  of  the  Baptists 
towards  them — we  ask  them  to  defer  Baptism  to  believing.  9.  The 
duty  of  such  Churches.  10.  The  duty  of  such  ministers.  11.  Why 
we  offer  these  remarks,  12.  All  Christians  love  Christ  better  than 
any  symbols.  13.  Fate  of  Sects.  14.  Prevailing  ideas  of  this  age — 
Voluntariness.  15.  ■  Sdf-government.  16.  Baptist  sentiments  embody 
these.  17.  Changes  progressive.  18.  The  Home  of  the  Christian. 
19.  It  embodies  the  results  of  all  the  changes  of  Time, 265 


APPENDIX. 

A.  Experience  of  President  Edwards, 281 

B.  Usage  of  the  terms  "  Church,"—"  Kingdom  of  God," 282 

C.  Moral  Maxim  of  Confucius, 289 

D.  Rev.  B.  W.  Noel's  reasons  for  being  baptized, 289 

E.  Augustine's  account  of  the  baptism  of  Victorinus, 291 

F.  Pliny's  account  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 293 

G.  Criticism  on  1  Corinthians,  10:  17, 294 

H.  Effects  of  Mixed  Communion  in  England,   •  • 296 

J.   Baptist  views  do  not  tempt  to  Superstition, 299 

K.  An  early  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson  on  our  churches, 299 

L.    Conservative  and  Reviving  influence  of  Baptist  Principles, 300 

M.   Fundamental  Evil  of  Infant  Baptism, 302 


COMMUNION 


INTRODUCTOEY  REMARKS. 

1.  Distinction  between  the  Literal,  and  Figurative  or  Symbolic  use  of 
the  term  Communion.  2.  An  error  here  lies  at  the  basis  of  much  of 
the  reasoning  on  this  subject.    3.  Division  of  the  subject 

1.  The  word  Communion  is  used,  amongst  Christians, 

in  different  senses.  Of  these  the  reader  of  the  following 
pages  will  need  carefully  to  distinguish  two,  the  Literal 
and  the  Figurative. 

Literally,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  in  the  next  chapter, 
it  is  a  spiritual  union  and  interchange  of  feeling,  and  is 
nearly  synonymous  with  fellowship. 

Figuratively,  the  word  Communion  is  used,  in  one  verse 
of  Scripture,  in  relation  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  There, 
(1  Cor.  10:  16,)  by  a  rhetorical  figure,  that  ordinance  is 
termed  '^  the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.'' 
Although  the  figurative  has  now  become  a  prevalent  and 
technical  sense  of  this  word,  the  above  is  the  only  passage, 
we  believe,  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  it,  or  the 
corresponding  G-reek  term  xoti/wn'a,  which  occurs  at  least 
twenty  times,  is  thus  used.  It  is  also  figuratively  used 
in  the  New  Testament  for  the  '^  contributions"  of  Christian 
benevolence. 

In  the  present  Essay,  we  propose  to  consider  the  subject 
of  Communion,  first,  according  to  the  more  strict  and 
2 


14  COMMUNION. 

literal  meaning  of  the  term,  and  tlien  in  its  figurative 
sense,  as  denoting  tlie  symbols  of  Communion. 

The  reader  should  guard  at  the  outset  of  this  discussion, 
against  losing  sight  of  the  distinction  between  Communion 
and  its  Symbols.  From  very  early  ages,  and  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  to  this  day,  the  symbols  of  religion,  and 
the  things  signified  by  them,  have  ever  been  strangely 
confounded ;  Penance  and  Repentance,  Baptism  and  Re- 
generation, the  Lord's  Supper  and  Communion  with 
Christ.  Indeed,  this  is  the  very  worst  and  most  essential 
error  of  Roman  Catholicism.  By  no  means  confined, 
however,  to  this  system,  it  will  continually  be  found  lead- 
ing theological  writers  of  all  classes,  even  the  most  com- 
pletely Protestant,  into  error. 

So  entirely  distinct  have  the  literal  and  symbolic  uses 
of  this  word  become,  that  as  accurate  a  lexicographer  as 
Crabbe,  treats  them  in  his  Synonymes,  without  the  least 
explanation,  as  two  separate  words,  classified,  as  to  signifi- 
cation, under  altogether  different  heads. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  singular  to  find  a  writer, 
generally  so  exact  in  his  use  of  terms  as  Robert  Hall, 
employing  this  word  so  ambiguously,  as  unfairly  to  preju- 
dice the  views  of  his  opponents.  He  thus  takes  for  granted 
that  what  is  true  of  the  term,  used  in  one  sense,  is  of 
necessity  equally  so,  when  used  in  the  other, — the  very 
thing  denied.  Thus,  in  the  Terms  of  Communion,  Part  II., 
the  title  of  the  very  first  section  reads,  "  Free  Communion 
[with  all  true  Christians,]  urged  from  the  obligation  of 
hrotlierly  love."  We  do  not  question  that  all  such  ought 
to  interchange  the  warmest  affection,  and  spiritual  Com- 
munion, as  Christians.  The  only  point  of  dispute  respects 
that  symbolic  Communion,  which  denotes  church  member- 


DIVISION   OF   THE   SUBJECT.  15 

ship.  The  ground  we  assume  on  this  point,  in  the  following 
pages,  though  opposed  to  his,  we  think  more  reasonable, 
that  we  should  spiritually  commune  with  those  to  whom 
we  are  spiritually  united,  and  ceremonially  with  those 
who  also  agree  with  us  as  to  the  ceremonies  which  Chris- 
tianity enjoins. 

3.  The  present  work,  therefore,  will  be  divided  into 
four  Parts,  corresponding  respectively  with  the  Literal 
and  the  Popular  uses  of  the  word,  and  with  the  applica- 
tion of  the  whole  to  the  arguments  of  Robert  Hall  and 
Baptist  W.  Noel  for  Mixed  Communion. 

Part  I.      In  what  Communion  consists. 

Part  II.     The  Symbols  or  Communion. 

Part  III.  The  Argujvients  oe  Robert  Hall  con- 
sidered. 

Part  IV.  The  Arguments  of  Baptist  W.  Noel 
considered. 

Upon  the  first  part  of  our  subject,  as  being  not  only 
more  vital,  but  also  more  spiritual,  and  therefore  more  dif- 
ficult to  apprehend,  we  shall  dwell  at  greater  length  than 
is  perhaps  strictly  necessary  to  its  elucidation.  To  avoid 
confounding  the  Literal  and  Figurative  senses  of  the  term 
Communion,  we  shall,  where  there  can  be  the  least  danger 
of  mistake,  use  it  only  in  its  literal  signification. 


PART  I. 

IN  WHAT  COMMUNION   CONSISTS. 


■m 


CHAPTER   I. 

MEANING   OF   TERMS. 

1.  Literal  meaning  of  Communion  and  Kocvuvia.  2.  Sense  of  Com- 
munion and  Fellowship  compared.  3.  A  closer  Communion  the  great 
want  of  the  age.    4.  The  Objects  of  Communion  classified. 

1.  Communion  !  How  grateful  this  word  to  the  ear  of 
the  believer  in  Christ,  connected  as  it  is  with  all  his  hap- 
piest associations  and  highest  blessings.  While  we  con- 
template its  nature,  may  we,  through  the  Spirit,  be  in  true 
Communion  with  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church. 

This  term  is  probably  from  the  Latin  communis,  com- 
mon ;  as  xoivuvLa,  the  corresponding  Greek  term,  is  from 
xoivuvso,  to  share  in  common,  (and  radically,  therefore,  from 
xoivoi,  comiyion).  Kowtcvia,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  gene- 
rally translated  FellowsMjy.  "  That  which  we  have  seen 
and  heard  declare  we  unto  you,  that  ye  also  may  have 
fellowship  with  us :  and  truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the 
Father,  and  with  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.''  Perhaps  this 
fact  may  be  useful,  in  enabling  us  not  only  to  extend,  but 
also  to  spiritualize  our  idea  of  the  word  Communion,  if 
indeed  this  be  necessary  of  a  term  which  Crabbe  discrimi- 
nates from  Converse,  by  saying,  that  it  ^'  may  take  place 
without  any  corporeal  agency ^ 

2.  Even  when  we  escape  the  common  error  of  confound- 
ing Communion  with  something  outward  and  corporeal, 
we  still  are  so  far  affected  by  it  as  to  circumscribe  Com- 
munion to  some  particular  act  or  time,  while  Fellowship 


20  COMMUNION. 

seems  to  express  the  more  habitual  state  of  our  affections 
and  hearts.  It  was  doubtless  on  this  account  that  our 
translators  rendered  xotrurta,  fellow8hi]jj  rather  than  comi- 
munion,  in  the  passage  quoted  above.  It  certainly  would 
not  convey  precisely  the  same  meaning,  rendered  "  Truly 
our  communion  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  His  Son  Jesus 
Christ,"  Communion  is  most  used  to  denote  an  act.  Fel- 
lowship, a  state.  Communion  implies  the  more  intensCj 
Fellowship  the  more  enduring  and  habitual  union.  Thus 
we  speak  of  ''  Communion  with  Grod  in  prayer,"  and  of 
^'  living  in  Fellowship  with  our  Christian  brethren."  We 
need  some  term  for  our  purposes  in  this  Essay,  that  shall, 
like  the  original,  embrace  all  that  is  contained  in  both 
these  words.*  We  shall  use  them  in  the  following  pages 
almost  interchangeably,  or  vary  or  unite  them  as  the  occa- 
sion requires. 

3.  The  great  truth  which  we  wish  to  develope  in  the 
First  Part  of  these  meditations  is  this : — that  A  closer 
Communion  of  Christians  as  such,  and  of  members  of 
churches  in  their  church  relations,  is  the  great  spiritual  waiit 
of  the  present  time.  In  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  the 
sword  of  persecution  acted  like  pressure  on  the  arch  of  a 
bridge,  and  bound  all  its  followers  firmly  and  closely  to- 
gether. This  pressure  is  now  taken  off,  and  the  whole  arc 
and  fabric  of  our  piety  has,  as  it  were,  sprung  up  and 
sprung  apart,  until  it  seems  ready  to  drop  to  pieces.  There 
wants  something  to  bring  Christians,  as  such,  together,  in 
a  more  true  and  well-defined  fellowship,  without  pretend- 
ing to  pledge  them  to  an  agreement  as  to  the  constitution 
of  a  church,  on  which  so  many  differ. 

*  For  some  further  remarks  on  the  senses  of  Kow/wj'ta,  see  Macknight 
on  the  Epistles.    1  John,  i.  3.     Note  3. 


OBJECTS    OF   RELIGIOUS    COMMUNION.  21 

This  is  the  great  want  of  the  age.  There  are  scattered 
elements  of  piety  and  of  power  enough  to  erect  a  glorious 
and  imposing  edifice  of  true  religion.  But  they  need 
combining  and  cementing  by  a  more  earnest  fellowship,  a 
warmer,  higher,  holier,  and  more  perpetual  communion. 
Accurate  views  of  the  nature  and  proper  manifestations 
of  Christian  fellowship,  as  distinct  from  Church  fellow- 
ship, it  is  hoped,  may  lead  to  the  increase  at  least  of  the 
former.  The  want  of  this  discrimination  has  certainly 
led  to  many  of  the  most  serious  heart-burnings  that  have 
afflicted  Christendom. 

4.  The  different  objects  of  religious  Communion  may 
be  classified  as  follows  : 

I.  Communion  with  the  Head  of  the  Church. 

II.  Communion  with  the  Church  Universal;  ^Hhe  whole 
family  in  heaven  and  in  earth." 

The  latter  division  will  embrace, — 

(1.)  Communion  with  the  Saints  in  glory. 
(2.)  Communion  with  Saints  on  earth. 
The  latter  of  these  will  embrace, — 

(a)  Communion  with  Christians,  as  such,  and  not  as 

members  of  any  particular  visible  Church. 
(5)  Communion  with  the  particular  Church  to  which 
each  one  respectively  is  attached. 


CHAPTER  II. 

COMMUNION   WITH   CHRIST   THE   HEAD   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

1.  How  far  this  embraces  Communion  with  the  whole  Godhead.  2.  Its 
powerful  effect  upon  the  heart  and  life.  3.  The  gi'cat  clue  to  the 
labyrinth  of  life.  4.  The  vital  force  and  moving  power  of  religious 
action.    5.  Illustration. 

"Whom  having  not  seen,  ye  love."— 1  Pet.2: 8.  "  Truly  our  fellowship  (xoivuiia) 
is  with  the  Father,  and  with  His  Son  Jesus  Christ." — 1  John,  1 :  3. 

1.  In  order  to  conceive  of  tlie  abstract  and  essential 
nature  of  Christian  Communion  most  perfectly,  let  us 
begin  by  considering  that  Communion  which  the  believer 
enjoys  loith  Christ j  the  Head  of  the  Church. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  the  believer  enjoys  Communion 
with  the  Father  of  Spirits,  but  in  the  present  state,  this 
is  chiefly  through  the  Mediator.  The  period  will  come, 
when  Christ,  ^^  having  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  Grod, 
even  the  Father,''  our  Communion  with  Him  shall  be 
immediate  and  direct.  But  thus  is  it  not  with  us  now.  It 
is  also  true  that  all  Christians  enjoy  '^the  Communion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,''  but  this  is  rather  a  communion  which 
He  awakens  in  us  with  the  Father  and  with  the  Son,  so 
that  in  our  proposed  contemplations  we  shall  substantially 
include  all  our  Communion  with  the  Godhead. 

2.  This  Communion  is  the  most  intense  in  its  nature, 
and  powerful  in  the  influence  it  has  upon  the  spirit.  It  is 
not  confined  to  any  means  or  channel.  "  If  a  man  love 
me,"  says  the  Saviour,  ^'  he  will  keep  my  words,  and  my 


ITS    EFFECTS    ON    THE    HEART   AND    LIFE.         23 

Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and 
make  our  abode  with  him/'  It  may  be  in  Baj^tism,  or  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  under  preaching  or  in  prayer,  that  the 
Christian  enjoys  it.  Or  it  may  be  without  any  outward 
means,  other  than  the  written  word,  or  in  solitary  contem- 
plation. One  of  the  most  marked  and  beautiful  instances 
of  this  latter  kind,  is  mentioned  by  President  Edwards, 
in  his  account  of  his  own  conversion.*  This  Communion 
is,  of  all  things,  the  most  essential  to  the  maintenance  of 
the  Christian  life,  character  and  happiness.  What  is  ex- 
istence itself  without  it,  to  him  who  has  tasted  of  the 
grace  of  God  ?  A  howling  wilderness,  a  sandy  desert.  If 
cool  streams  seem  flowing  before  him  in  the  distance,  they 
are  but  phantoms,  which  only  disappoint  and  lead  astray. 
Without  Christian  principles  to  guide  a  man,  without 
communion  with  Jesus  to  cheer  him,  life  itself  is  all  a 
hopeless  mystery, — a  labyrinth,  in  which  the  traveller  is 
continually  losing  his  way,  or  ever  vainly  coming  round, 
again  and  again,  without  progress,  to  the  same  point. 
"  That  which  hath  been,  shall  be,''  seems  stamped  on  every 
thing,  and  the  highest  merely  intellectual  processes  bring 
him  round  to  the  sickening  conclusion,  that  "all  is  vanity 
and  vexation  of  spirit."  Without  this  grace,  a  man  stands 
at  the  close  of  existence,  no  nearer  its  true  goal  than  at 
the  beginning.  Life  is  but  a  circle,  and  death  a  "  leap  in 
the  dark." 

3.  Communion  with  Christ  illumines  this  darkness,  and 
aff'ords  a  clue  to  this  maze ;  giving  to  life  a  definite  aim, 
an  animating  hope,  and  rendering  it  in  every  case  suc- 
cessful in  its  issue.  The  story  of  Rosamond's  Bower  is 
familiar  to  all.  It  was  said  to  be  surrounded  by  a  laby- 
rinth so  constructed,  that  amid  a  thousand  devious  paths, 
*  See  Appendix,  A. 


24  COMMUNION. 

but  one  conducted  to  tlie  centre.  None  could  penetrate  it 
without  the  clue.  That  clue,  formed  of  a  single  thread  of 
silk,  was  so  suspended  that  it  was  difficult  to  keep  it  in 
sight,  and  so  slender  that  a  touch  would  snap  it.  Yet 
only  by  following  that  delicate  guide  could  one  penetrate 
the  maze  successfully,  or  escape  being  utterly  lost  in  its 
windings.  Just  such  a  hidden  guide  through  life  is  Com- 
munion with  Christ.  A  single  golden  thread  running 
unperceived  by  most,  along  the  labyrinths  of  life,  afford- 
ing to  those  who  possess  it,  a  clear  and  certain  clue,  and 
conducting  safely  all  who  follow  it  through  the  world's 
mazes  and  mysteries.  It  comes  from  heaven  and  therefore 
conducts  to  it.  Mysterious  clue  !  So  sure  when  truly 
followed  with  a  sincere  and  humble  footstep,  yet  so  deli- 
cate J  so  often  unperceived  even  by  the  most  careful ;  so 
hard  to  regain  when  missed.  0  Holy  and  Most  Blessed 
Guide,  to  whom  we  owe  it,  sole  Leader  of  the  pilgrim  here 
below!  grant  us  thine  aid;  leave  us  not  orphans;  ever  be 
thou  present ;  let  us  never  lose  sight  of  thee. 

4.  We  need  ever  to  feel  that  communion  with  Christ  is 
the  first  and  chief  thing  in  Christianity.  It  gives  life  to 
all  the  rest.  Let  it  be  there,  and  every  Christian  grace 
and  virtue  will  regularly  and  naturally  follow.  It  is  the 
vital  force,  the  great  moving  power  of  all  truly  religious 
actions. 

5.  It  is  like  the  main-spring  of  a  watch,  which,  though 
boxed  around,  and  covered  up  from  sight,  moves  all  the 
wheels  by  its  concealed,  but  steady  and  drawing  power. 
Without  it,  the  mechanism  might  seem  perfect,  the  wheels 
all  adjusted,  but  they  could  never  move.  Thus  it  is  with 
man.  His  intellect  may  be  clear,  his  knowledge  complete, 
his  morals  excellent,  he  may  have  the  Bible  in  his  hand ; 
but  without  the  love  of  Grod  in  his  heart,  without  com- 


LLUSTRATION.  25 

munion  with  Christ,  what  is  he  ?     He  knows  not  how  to 
make  the  first  right  movement  in  anything  religious. 

Much  more  evidently  is  it  thus  in  a  Church.  If  it  hold 
not  the  Head, — if  its  members  have  not  communion,  daily 
personal  spiritual  communion  with  Christ,  what  is  that 
Church  ?  A  watch,  without  a  main-spring.  It  may  have 
hundreds  of  members,  great  intelligence,  regularity,  and 
ability ;  all  the  wheels  and  mechanism  of  Christian  mem- 
bership may  be  there ;  yet  what  is  it  after  all,  but  a  cold, 
dead,  motionless  uniformity,  with  the  regularity  of  order, 
but  the  rigidity  of  death.  Such  a  body  is  a  mere  for- 
mality. Church  fellowship  is  a  lifeless  and  powerless 
thing,  unless  fellowship  with  Christ  be  its  basis.  But  let 
that  be  there  as  the  moving  principle,  and  it  will  make  all 
the  routine  of  Church  duties,  order,  and  discipline,  work 
easily  and  frictionless.  The  more  earnest  and  powerful 
the  Communion  with  Christ,  the  more  easily  will  all  other 
duties  be  performed.  If  we  wish  to  make  all  the  ma- 
chinery of  a  large  factory  perform  with  most  perfect 
regularity  and  ease,  and  if  there  are  a  hundred  compli- 
cated wheels  and  joints,  all  rusty  and  stiff,  how  shall  we 
hope  to  effect  our  purpose  ?  By  turning  around  each  little 
wheel  by  hand,  retailing  thus  our  strength  by  driblets  ? 
No,  but  by  concentrating  force  in  the  engine,  by  kindling 
a  flame,  and  piling  up  fuel,  and  generating  the  steam,  and 
when  the  main-shaft  moves  with  a  powerful  stroke  it  will 
carry  everything  around,  large  and  small.  From  the  great 
driving  wheel  to  the  most  remote  spindle,  all  then  will 
work  harmoniously  and  well.  Just  thus  is  it  in  the  Church 
of  Christ;  one-half  of  the  wheels  turn  not  at  all  in  ordinary 
times ;  and  when  they  do,  they  speak  with  creaking,  rusty 
eloquence,  of  the  disorder  that  corrodes  each  part,  and 
disturbs  the  motion  of  the  whole. 

3 


26  COMMUNION. 

What  is  the  remedy  ?  More  Communion  with  Christ. 
That  secured,  all  duties  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  with 
its  glorious  and  goodly  fellowship,  will  work  smoothly  and 
sweetly,  without  harshness  or  formality,  without  strife  or 
jarring.     This  is  the  true  and  only  remedy. 


CHAPTEK  III. 

COMMUNION   WITH   THE   CHURCH   UNIVERSAL:    WITH   THE 
SAINTS    IN    GLORY. 

1.  Communion  with  the  Church  Universal — its  two  divisions.  2.  The 
Christian  communes  loith  the  Saints  in  glory.  3.  There  was  much  of 
this  in  primitive  times.  4.  How  it  may  be  enjoyed  now.  5.  The 
spirit  of  the  age  in  regard  to  it.  6.  The  Saints  in  gloi-y  have  Com- 
munion with  us.    7.  Spiritual  influences.    8.  Practical  effects. 

1.  We  turn  now  to  consider  the  Communion  of  tlie 
child  of  God  with  the  Church  Universal.  This  may  be 
divided  into  Communion  with  the  Saints  in  glory,  and 
with  the  Saints  on  earth. 

In  the  present  chapter  we  treat  of  The  Christian's  fel- 
lowship loith  the  Saints  in  Glory.  This  communion  is  mu- 
tual.    He  communes  with  them  ;   they  with  him. 

2.  The  Christian  communes  with  the  Saints  in  Glory. 
There  is  not  a  more  unscriptural  dogma,  than  that  of  the 
Romish  Church,  which  teaches  us  to  pray  to  and  for  the 
dead.  But  there  is  not  a  more  scriptural  or  delightful 
doctrine  than  that  of  the  spiritual  communion  of  the 
whole  church,  the  living  and  the  dead,  of  all  ages  and  of 
all  climes.  ''We  are  come,^'  says  Paul,  ''to  the  hea- 
venly Jerusalem,  and  to  an  innumerable  company  of 
angels,  to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first- 
born, whose  names  are  written  in  heaven,  and  to  God,  the 
Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect.'' 

3.  Primitive  Christians  lived  much  nearer  to  their 
brethren  who  had  passed  into  the  world  of  spirits,  than 


28  COMMUNION. 

we  do  in  modern  times.  Paul  speaks  of  them  continually 
as  all  forming  a  part  of  that  same  great  company ;  two 
divisions  of  the  same  army,  one  on  this  side  of  the  river 
of  death,  and  the  other  beyond  it;  one  division  having  "en- 
tered into  rest/'  the  other,  by  small  detachments,  entering 
in ;  both  as  having  the  same  leader,  Christ,  "  who  died, 
and  rose,  and  revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  the 
dead  and  living,' '  so  that  "  whether  we  wake  or  sleep,  we 
might  live  together  with  him/' 

"  One  family,  we  dwell  in  him  ; 
One  church,  above,  beneath  ; 
Though  now  divided  by  the  btreani, 
The  narrow  stream  of  death. 

One  army  of  the  living  God, 

To  his  command  we  bow  ; 
Part  of  the  host  have  crossed  the  flood, 

And  part  are  crossing  now." 

The  saints  of  primitive  times  walked  so  closely  to  the 
gates  of  Paradise,  and  lived  so  completely  in  communion 
with  the  unseen  world,  that  it  appeared  to  them  but  a 
short  and  easy  step  from  the  Church  below  to  that  above, 
as  if  a  person  on  a  journey,  should  go  to  sleep  to-night  in 
Time,  and  awake  to-morrow  in  Eternity. 

Hence  it  was,  that  anciently  the  bodies  of  pious  Chris- 
tians were  brought  for  a  time  into  the  churches,  and  so 
often  buried  in  and  around  them ;  even  because  the  early 
Christians  loved  the  idea  of  uniting  their  praises  and  wor- 
ship in  company,  as  it  were,  with  those  who  having  passed 
through  the  trials  of  the  church  militant,  were  now  enjoy- 
ing the  repose  and  blessedness  of  the  church  triumphant. 
Their  names  were  read,  and  their  lives  and  actions  of  piety 
mentioned  at  the  Table,  during  the  celebration   of  the 


WITH    THE    SAINTS    IN    GLORY.  29 

Eucharist,  and  solemn  praise  was  offered  that  they  had 
been  enabled  to  maintain  a  holy  and  virtuous  life  to  the 
end.  Their  memory  was  cherished,  and  every  means  taken 
to  keep  up  the  idea  that  we  are  now  worshipping  the 
same  Being  below,  that  they  adore  around  the  Throne 
above.  This  was  done,  we  are  expressly  informed  by  the 
Author  of  Dionysius,  '^  partly  to  excite  the  living  to  the 
same  course,  and  partly  to  show  that  they  were  still  living 
according  to  the  principles  of  religion  and  not  properly 
dead,  but  only  translated  by  death  to  a  more  Divine  life.''* 
No  doubt  superstition  very  early  corrupted  all  this  into 
praying  for  the  dead ;  for  what  will  not  superstition  cor- 
rupt ?  But  the  idea  of  the  essential  oneness  of  the  whole 
Church,  militant  and  triumphant,  is  true,  scriptural  and 
ennobling. 

"  Let  saints  below  in  concert  sing 
With  those  to  glory  gone  ; 
For  all  the  servants  of  our  King, 
In  heaven  and  earth  are  one. 

Tbe  Church,  triumphant  in  thy  love, 

Their  mighty  joys  we  know  ; 
They  sing  the  Lamb  in  hymns  above, 

And  we  in  hymns  below." 

'  4.  In  studying  the  holy  deeds  and  writings  of  Prophets, 
Apostles,  Martyrs,  and  Reformers  of  all  ages,  we  enjoy  a 
true  spiritual  fellowship  with  them.  While  we  meditate 
upon  the  history  of  the  people  of  Grod,  the  struggles  and 
piety  of  men  of  former  ages,  we  imbibe  their  spirit,  and 
become  wiser  and  holier  by  their  examples.  And  in  pro- 
portion as  we  do  this,  do  we  enjoy  the  true  Communion 
with  Saints.     Even  when,  from  time  to  time,  we  bend 

*  Bingham's  Antiq.  Christian  Church,  bk.  15,  ch.  iii.,  sec.  17. 
3* 


30  COMMUNION. 

weeping  over  the  remains  of  those  whose  virtues  we  have 
known,  and  bedew  their  coffins  with  our  tears,  and  resolve 
to  follow  their  faith,  to  imitate  their  example,  and  to  wor- 
ship as  they  also  worshipped,  we  enjoy  this  fellowship  and 
communion.  Who  has  not  felt  the  influence  of  a  pious 
Mother  or  Father,  a  Sister  or  AYife,  animating  their  devo- 
tions, long  years  after  their  departure  to  the  skies  ?  Robert 
Hall  lost  his  theoretical  materialism  in  praying  by  the 
grave  of  his  Father.  How  often  are  the  saints  of  Christ 
cheered  by  the  hope,  that  their  eyes  will  one  day  gaze 
upon  their  departed  friends,  upon  Apostles  and  Prophets, 
whose  example  they  have  followed,  and  whose  deeds  have 
encouraged  them  here; — Paul  the  logician, — Peter  the 
zealous, — John  the  beloved, — Moses  and  Elias, — Samuel 
and  David, — Daniel  and  Isaiah, — the  glorious  company  of 
the  Apostles, — ^the  goodly  fellowship  of  the  Prophets,  and 
the  noble  army  of  Martyrs !  And  those  hopes  shall  not 
be  disappointed.  Our  eyes  shall  gaze  upon  them.  Even 
now  are  they  worshipping  as  we  worship,  all  forming  part 
of  that  ^'general  assembly'^  to  which  we  also  belong. 
With  all,  from  the  saint  most  newly  arrived  in  the  king- 
dom of  bliss,  whose  life  and  suiFerings  we  have  witnessed, 
to  the  holy  Apostle  who  leaned  on  the  breast  of  Jesus  at 
the  Last  Supper,  we  have  fellowship,  a  true  and  living  com- 
munion even  now :  it  is  our  privilege  as  saints,  our  birth- 
right as  Christians. 

5.  But  how  little  of  all  this  do  we  realize  !  How  far 
below  it  do  we  live  !  The  tendency  of  the  age  draws  men 
to  live  only  in  the  present,  and  to  forget  the  past.  This 
infects  even  the  temper  of  our  piety.  There  is  too  often  a 
forgetfulness  of  the  maxims  and  experience  of  those  of 
our  Christian  brethren  and  friends  who  have  fallen  asleep 
before  our  very  eyes.     ''  The  righteous  perisheth,  and  no 


OF    SAINTS    IN    GLORY   WITH   US.  31 

man  layeth  it  to  heart."  Tlie  saints  of  Christ  die,  and 
their  memory  seems  lost,  almost  before  their  bodies  are 
cold.  They  fall  asleep  in  Jesus,  their  spirits  fly  to  the 
throne  of  God,  but  what  eye  of  faith  follows  them  ?  They 
are  put  into  the  cold,  damp  earth,  and  then,  oh  !  how  soon 
are  their  labors  and  piety  forgotten. 

We  dread  this  temper  of  the  times,  so  cold,  so  careless. 
He  only  who  looks  backwards,  with  piety  and  reverence, 
to  the  past,  knows  how  to  move  forward  with  wisdom  into 
the  future.  Reader,  have  you  had  pious  relatives  and 
friends  ?  Think  of  them.  Where  are  they  ?  On  what  con- 
templations are  they  now  employed  ?  How  would  you  act 
if  you  felt  their  eyes  at  this  moment  resting  on  you  ? 

6.  It  is  certain  that  the  Saints  in  Glory  have  a  true 
Communion  with  us.  We  know  that  ^^  the  great  cloud  of 
witnes&es,"  who  all  died  in  faith,  "  compass  us  about,"  to 
animate  and  strengthen  us  to  run  the  race  of  life  eternal. 
We  know,  too,  that  there  are  ^'ministering  spirits  sent 
forth  to  minister  unto  those  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salva,- 
tion.'^  These  proffer  us  the  communion  of  their  love,  sym- 
pathy, and  example,  in  order  that  we  may  draw  spiritual 
sustenance  through  our  knowledge  of  their  purified  natures. 

7.  The  soul  has,  doubtless,  powers  of  attraction  and 
repulsion  for  different  orders  of  spiritual  beings,  by  a 
magnetism  of  its  own,  and  according  to  its  own  character. 
The  spirit  of  the  man  of  evil  dispositions,  repels  holy 
influences  and  agents,  just  as  one  point  of  the  loadstone 
repels  substances  magnetized  for  the  opposite  pole ;  but  it 
will  perhaps  attract  and  draw  unto  itself  other  spirits 
more  wicked  than  itself,  and  they,  entering  in,  dwell 
there.  Hence  the  demoniacal  possessions  of  ancient  times, 
and  hence  probably  much  of  the  perfect  madness  and  folly 
of  wickedness,  so  often  exhibited  in  outbursts,  by  men  of 


32  COMMUNION. 

depraved  characters.  But  the  soul  of  the  pious  man, 
quickened  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  will  draw  towards  it  influ- 
ences only  of  light  and  glory,  and  repel  all  others.  Thus 
is  it  that  those  happy  spirits,  ^'who  do  always  behold 
the  face  of  the  Heavenly  Father,"  guide  us  through  the 
snares,  and  elevate  and  comfort  us  amid  the  depressions 
of  the  present  state.  In  this  manner  it  is,  that  the 
believer  in  Christ  is  made  so  fully  one  with  the  spiritual 
and  invisible  Church,  of  all  climes,  and  of  all  ages. 
Hence,  too,  the  whole  Church  militant,  united  as  it  is 
with  the  Church  triumphant,  possesses  the  combined  wis- 
dom and  experience  of  all  the  past,  and  moves  forward, 
"  fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as  the  sun,  and  terrible  as  an 
army  with  banners." 

8.  Christians  in  this  way  stand,  in  each  successive  age, 
upon  a  more  elevated  platform.  We  may,  if  we  will, 
mount  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  who  have  gone  before 
us.  We  must  do  this,  if  we  would  effect  anything.  The 
hosts  of  sin  are  wiser  and  more  subtle  by  the  experience 
of  the  past.  Good  and  evil  are  assuming  greater  force ; 
becoming  more  compact,  condensed,  and  tremendous.  Be- 
tween these  two  classes  of  influence,  we  have  to  choose. 
To  one  or  the  other  of  these  powers,  we  must  ally  our- 
selves.    It  is  impossible  to  be  neutral. 

There  is  in  the  spirit  of  man,  an  instinctive  choice  of 
good  or  evil,  momentarily  going  on ;  a  choice  between  the 
fellowship  of  Christ  and  his  Saints,  and  the  fellowship  of 
the  hosts  of  evil.  But  with  one  party  or  the  other,  we 
must  side.  There  is  a  battle  to  be  fought,  and  life  is  one 
vast  scene  of  conflict.  If  we  choose  the  elevated  course, 
the  heavenly  fellowship,  which  has  just  been  discussed, 
we  become  allied  to  that  cause  whose  final  triumph  is  cer- 
tain.    The  Son  of  God  goes  forth  to  war.     Victory  is 


ITS    FINAL   ISSUES.  33 

written  on  his  thigh, — angels  are  his  attendants, — spiritual 
powers  watch  and  guard  those  who  love  him, — the  nations 
fall  before  him, — the  kingdoms  of  this  world  are  rapidly 
becoming  the  kingdoms  of  the  Lord  and  of  his  Christ.  He 
sweeps  all  his  enemies  away  before  his  face.  The  whole 
earth  and  all  heaven  will  finally  be  embraced  in  one  vast 
fellowship  of  Holiness,  and  "  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord 
sliall  cover  the  earth,  as  the  waters  cover  the  depths.'' 
But  who  shall  stand  among  that  holy  throng  ?  Let  the 
beloved  Apostle  reply — "  If  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  He  is 
in  the  light,  we  have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  Son,  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.'' 


CHAPTER  lY. 

COMMUNION   WITH   CHRISTIANS   ON   EARTH. 

1.  Distinction  between  Communion  and  its  Symbols,  repeated.  2.  Com- 
munion with  Christians  on  earth,  of  two  kinds.  3.  The  distinction 
illustrated.  4.  The  distinction  shown  by  the  two  senses  of  the  word 
Church.  5.  Quotation  from  Robert  Hall.  6.  The  error  of  Mr.  Hall's 
opinion,  that  a  particular  visible  Church  differs  from  the  Invisible, 
only  as  a  part  from  the  whole.  7.  The  true  distinction  shown  by 
Neander. 

1.  We  are  now  about  to  treat  of  our  Communion  with 
the  followers  of  Christ  on  earth,  however  this  may  exist, 
or  in  whatever  way  it  may  be  expressed.  Whether  they 
are  members  of  any  visible  church,  or  not,  if  they  are 
Christ's,  they  are  Abraham's  seed,  heirs  of  the  Covenant, 
and  therefore,  partakers  of  the  Communion  of  Saints. 

We  would  again  remind  the  reader  of  the  necessity  of 
distinguishing  the  Communion  of  the  Saints,  from  the 
tokens  of  Communion.  The  one  may  exist,  as  we  have 
seen,  with  Christ,  and  with  the  saints  in  glory,  apart  from 
all  outward  tokens,  and  so  the  tokens  may  be  present, 
when  all  true  Communion  with  Christ,  and  with  Chris- 
tians, is  absent.  Indeed,  the  expressions  of  Communion 
must  be  partial  and  varied,  compared  with  the  fellowship 
or  Communion  signified,  which  is  often  far  more  extensive 
and  perpetual.  True  Communion  is  a  spiritual,  and  not 
a  visible  thing.  It  may,  in  part,  be  symbolized,  as  in 
united  prayer,  or  the  Lord's  Supper;  but  no  Christian  ever 


TWO    KINDS   ON    EARTH.  35 

yet,  on  the  most  extensive  sacramental  occasion,  partook 
of  tlie  same  elements  with  one  thousandth  part  of  those 
with  whom  he  would  acknowledge  true  Christian  Commu- 
nion, for  this  he  has,  with  all  saints  in  heaven,  as  well  as 
on  earth.  Nor  will  the  two  ever  be  co-extensive,  until  he 
shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  to  eat 
bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  at  the  marriage  sui3per  of 
the  Lamb. 

2.  The  Communion  with  the  Saints  on  earth  is  of  two 
kinds.  I.  Christian  felloivship,  II.  Church  fellowship. 
The  former  embraces  that  spiritual  Communion  which  we 
hold  with  our  brethren  in  the  Lord  as  such,  and  not  in 
consequence  of  any  visible  Church  relations.  The  latter 
is  that  which  we  have  specially  with  those  to  whom  we 
sustain  such  relations. 

3.  The  distinction  which  we  would  here  point  out,  may 
be  most  readily  illustrated  by  the  difference  which  there 
is  in  civil  life,  between  the  affection  which  a  man  owes  to 
his  own  particular  family,  and  the  regard  which  he  bears 
to  his  friends  and  fellow-citizens.  It  is  his  duty  to  cherish 
toward  all  around  him,  sincere  friendliness  and  good-will; 
there  may  even  arise  cases,  where  it  will  be  so  far  neces- 
sary to  sacrifice  the  family  to  the  community,  that  he 
should  be  willing  to  die  for  the  good  of  his  country.  Yet 
who  doubts  that  there  is  a  vast  distinction  between  the 
affection  due  to  a  wife  and  family,  and  a  proper  regard  to 
all  others,  neighbors,  fellow-citizens,  or  even  friends? 
The  peculiar  family  affection  can  be,  and  ought  to  be, 
shared  only  by  members  of  that  family.  For  a  man  to 
love  any  other  children  as  his  own,  would  be  far  from  a 
virtue. 

Just  so  must  we  cherish  not  only  a  fellowship  with 
all  Christians  upon  earth,  rendering  us  willing,  if  need  be. 


36  COMMUNION. 

to  ^^  lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren,"  but  a  still  closer 
Communion  and  fellowship  with  those  who,  by  providence 
and  grace,  are  members  of  the  same  particular  Church  or 
family  of  visible  Christians. 

4.  This  distinction  is  neither  arbitrary,  nor  artificial.  It 
originates  in  the  Bible,  or  rather  in  the  plan  of  Church 
government  instituted  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  who 
established,  wherever  they  went,  societies,  independent  of 
each  other,  and  completely  organized  within  themselves, 
consisting  of  those  professed  Christians  who  were  able, 
conveniently  and  regularly,  to  assemble  together.  These 
Societies  were  termed  Churches.  Whoever  carefully  studies 
the  New  Testament  will  find  that  the  word  Church,  when 
applied  to  a  Christian  assembly,  is  used  in  two  distinct 
senses.  (1.)  For  a  particular  Congregation  of  professed 
believers.  (2.)  For  the  Universal  Church, — the  general 
assembly  and  church  of  the  first-born.  Dr.  Robinson,  in 
his  New  Testament  Lexicon,  defining  sxxJirjOLa  finds  two, 
and  but  two  ecclesiastical  senses  in  which  it  is  used,  (a) 
a  particular  Church,  e.  g.  The  Church  in  Jerusalem, 
Acts  8:  1.  Antioch,  Acts  11:  26,  &c.  (b.)  The  Church 
Universal,  Heb.  12:  23,  &c.     (See  Appendix  B.) 

5.  Robert  Hall  has,  in  like  manner,  remarked,  that 
"  in  the  New  Testament  we  shall  find  the  word  Church,  as 
a  religious  appellation,  occurring  in  two  senses  only, 
denoting  either  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful,  or  some 
one  assembly  of  Christians  associated  for  the  worship  of 
Grod.  *  *  *  *  In  |;iiig  ^the  former]  sense,  Jesus 
Christ  is  afiirmed  to  be  'Head  over  all  things  to  the 
Church,  which  is  his  body.'  When  the  term  is  em- 
ployed to  denote  a  particular  assembly  of  Christians,  it  is 
invariably  accompanied  with  a  specification  of  the  place 
where  it  was  accustomed  to  convene,  as  for  example,  the 


ROBERT  hall's  ERROR.  37 

Church  at  Antioch,  at  Corinth,  at  Ej^hesus,  or  at  Rome. 
It  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament,  as  in  modern  times, 
to  denote  the  aggregate  of  Christian  assemblies  through- 
out a  province  or  a  kingdom ;  nor  do  we  ever  read  of  the 
Church  of  Achaia,  Galatia,  &c.,  but  of  the  churches,  in 
the  plural  number/^* 

Fully  concurring  in  the  above  observations,  we  quote 
them  here  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that,  according 
to  Robert  Hall  himself,  the  New  Testament  treats  specifi- 
cally of  our  communion  or  fellowship  with  the  particular 
or  visible  Church  with  which  we  are  associated,  as  quite 
distinct  from  that  general  fellowship  which  we  have  with 
all  other  Christians,  as  members  of  the  Universal  or  Invi- 
sible Church. 

Each  separate  Church  then,  is  recognized  in  Scripture 
as  a  divinely  organized  Society,  having  its  own  special 
prerogatives  and  relations  independently  of  all  other  bodies ; 
and  for  the  employment  of  which,  it  is  answerable  to  the 
Head  of  the  Church  alone.  Its  fellowship  is  peculiar; 
just  as  in  every  state,  each  member  of  a  family  has  pecu- 
liar relations  and  obligations  to  the  other  members,  in 
regard  to  which  the  State  has  no  concern ;  he  is  answerable 
only  to  them,  and  to  the  God  of  the  families  of  all  the 
earth.  Such  is  the  distinction  between  Christian  fellow- 
ship and  Church  fellowship. 

6.  It  is  far  indeed  from  our  intention  to  represent 
Robert  Hall  as  carrying  out  this  distinction  as  we  have 
done.  He  seems,  on  the  contrary,  to  us,  first  to  admit  its 
Scriptural  basis,  and  then  quite  to  fail  in  erecting  upon 
the  foundation  thus  laid,  any  appropriate  edifice.  He 
takes  for  granted,   as  a  matter  of  course,   rather  than 

*  R.  Hall,  on  Communion.— Part  2,  sect.  3. 


38  COMMUNION. 

attempts  to  prove  that  the  Universal  Church,  (which  is  an 
Invlsihle  body,)  "  diiFers  from  a  particular  assembly  of 
Christians  (which  is  a  visible  body,)  only  as  the  whole 
differs  from  a  part,"  and  that  a  single  Church,  such  as  the 
Church  of  Ephesus  or  Corinth,  differs  from  the  general 
assembly  and  Church  of  the  first-born,  ^^  only  as  a  part 
differs  from  the  whole."*  In  this  case,  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  perceive  why  the  sacred  writers  so  carefully  avoid 
using  it,  as  in  the  former  extracts  he  admits  and  contends 
that  they  do,  to  denote  the  aggregate  of  Christians 
throughout  a  province  or  a  kingdom.  Here,  the  chief 
fallacy  lies  in  that  able  author's  Treatise  on  Communion. 
We  can  by  no  means  admit  that  a  particular  visible  Church 
differs  from  the  Church  Universal  invisible,  ".only"  as  a, 
part  differs  from  the  whole.  With  equal  justice  might  it 
be  said,  that  a  family  differs  from  a  nation  only  as  a  part 
from  the  whole.  The  membership  of  the  two  bodies  is 
based  upon  different  principles.  As  no  man  can  read  the 
heart  of  his  fellow-man,  so  a  credible  j)'^o/ess ion  of  piety  is 
all  that  is  requisite  for  membership  in  a  particular  visible 
Church,  whatever  may  be  the  state  of  the  heart.  The 
Invisible  or  Universal  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  as 
Robert  Hall  would  allow,  is  entirely  a  spiritual  body,  and 
consists  of  such  only,  whatever  their  professions,  as  possess 
sincere  piety,  j-  Indeed,  from  the  meaning  of  words,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  show  that  the  terms  of  visible  Church  member- 
ship must  embrace  that  which  he  himself  admits  not  to  be 
requisite  to  membership  in  the  Invisible  Church.  For 
although  true  faith  in  Christ,  which  alone  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  or  admission  to  the  Invisible  Church,  may  be 
said  perhaps  to  include  the  disposition  to  confess  him,  it 

*  Terms  of  Communion. — Part  2,  sect.  3. 
t  Dr.  Dagg,  on  Communion.— Part  2,  sect.  3. 


NEANDER    MAKES   THE   TRUE   DISTINCTION.        89 

cannot  always  embrace  any  actual  profession  of  religion ; 
whereas,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  some  credible  pro- 
fession of  religion  must  be  one  of  the  pre-requisites  to 
visible  Church  membership.  To  contend  that  the  terms 
of  admission  into  the  two  bodies  are  identical,  must  there- 
fore be  a  fallacy. 

7.  That  in  the  plan  of  government  developed  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  distinction  between  the  term  of  visi- 
ble and  invisible  membership  is  recognized  clearly,  the 
following  extract  from  Neander's  ^^  Planting  and  Training 
of  the  Christian  Church,^'  well  illustrates :  '^  John  also 
describes  an  inward  community,  the  assemblage  of  those 
who  stand  in  communion  with  the  Redeemer,  and  which 
embraces  the  whole  development  of  the  divine  life  among 
mankind ;  and  an  outward  community  of  believers,  which 
it  is  possible  for  thou  to  join  who  have  no  part  in  the 

former We  find  here,  as  in  St.  Paul's  writings, 

the  distinction  of  the  visible  and  the  invisible  church." 
Bk.  6,  chap.  4,  pp.  320-321. 

To  the  visible  churches  of  Christ  belong  ordinances 
and  means  of  grace,  things  temporary  in  their  nature,  and 
to  be  observed  only  ^'  till  He  come,''  who  is  the  Head  of 
the  Church.  To  the  Universal  Church,  as  such,  which  is 
a  spiritual  and  therefore  invisible  body,  ordinances  are 
impossible,  since  it  cannot  be  convened ;  and  means  of 
grace  are  unnecessary,  since  its  members  all  drink  from 
the  fountain  head,  and  enjoy  the  grace  of  the  means. 

There  are  radically,  therefore,  two,  and  but  two  kinds 
of  communion,  which  we  can  hold  with  the  followers  of 
Christ  on  earth.  First,  Christian  Cor}itnunion,  or  fellow- 
ship with  the  followers  of  Christ  at  large,  as  such ;  and 
secondly,  Church  Communion,  or  fellowship  with  the  par- 


40  COMMUNION. 

ticular  cliiircli  to  which,  by  the  grace  and  providence  of 
God,  we  belong.  The  fellowship  of  Associations,  Conven- 
tions, Synods,  and  Denominations,  is  a  voluntary  and 
advisory  matter,  to  be  regulated  on  general  principles  of 
expediency,  not  being  laid  down  in  the  Word  of  God. 


CHAPTER  V. 

FELLOWSHIP    WITH    CHRISTIANS   AS     SUCH,    AND    NOT   AS 
MEMBERS   OF   ANY   PARTICULAR   VISIBLE   CHURCH. 

1,  The  New  Commandment  explained.  2.  This  Communion  may  exist 
apart  from  all  symbols.  3.  It  need  not  interfere  with  denominational 
preferences.  4.  Baptist  principles  most  favorable  to  Christian  fellow- 
ship.   5.  How  to  promote  it. 

*'  "Whoso  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  how  shall  he  love  God 
whom  he  hath  not  seen."  1  John,  4 :  20. 

1.  The  object  of  the  present  chapter  is  to  show,  or 
rather  to  illustrate  what  will  hardly  be  denied,  though  it 
is  often  forgotten;  that,  as  Christians,  we  must  and  ought 
to  have  a  true  fellowship  with  those  whom  we  esteem 
Christians,  as  such,  though  they  may  not  be  members  of 
our  own,  or  indeed  of  any  particular  visible  Church,  but  only 
of  Christ's  mystical  body,  the  Church  Universal;  such 
characters  as  the  penitent  thief  of  primitive,  or  a  pious 
Quaker  of  modern  times. 

It  was  in  relation  to  this  love  for  all  who  love  Christ, 
that  our  blessed  Saviour  said,  ^^  A  new  commandment  give 
I  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another.  As  I  have  loved 
you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another.''  But  wherein,  it  will 
be  asked,  is  the  newness  of  this  command  ?  Not  in  the 
injunction  laid  on  Christians  to  love  one  another,  in  com- 
mon with  the  rest  of  mankind.  Had  Christ  never  come, 
4* 


42  COMMUNION. 

this  duty  would  liave  "been  binding  upon  tliem.     ^^  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,"  is  the  universal  com- 
mand, not  only  of  Christianity,  but  also  of  the  Jewish, 
and  even  of  natural  religion.     And  while  Infidels  have 
cavilled  at  it,  even  heathen  philosophers  have  laid  it  down 
as  the  foundation  of  all  Ethics.*     Wherein  then,  consisted 
the  newness  of  the   command  ?     It  was  in  the  peculiar 
manner  and  degree  of  the  love  enjoined,  "as  I  have  loved 
you  that  ye  also  love   one  another."     Christ  here  makes 
out  that  ''  especial  dearness,   that  watchful  disciplinary 
love  and  loving-kindness,  which,  over  and  above  the  affec- 
tions and  duties  of  philanthrophy  and  universal  charity," 
were  to  form  the  basis  of  a  new,  a  Christian  fellowship. 
"By  a  charity,  wide  as  sunshine,  and  comprehending  the 
whole  human  race,"  says  Coleridge,  "  the  body  of  Chris- 
tians was  to  be  placed  in  contrast  with  the  proverbial 
misanthropy  and  bigotry   of   the  Jewish  Church,  while 
yet  they  were  to  be  distinguished  and  known  to  all  men, 
hy    the  peculiar  love   and    affection  displayed   by  them 
towards    the  members   of  their  own  community.     How 
kind  these  Christians  are  to  the  poor,  without  distinction 
of  religion  or  country,  but  how  they  love  each  other."f 
This  new,  this  higher,  this  holier  affection  that  binds 
Christian  to  Christian,  is  of  the  most  heavenly  nature. 
The  love  of  Christ  to  the  Church  Universal  is  the  highest 
exhibition,  the  full  measure  of  it.     He  loved  the  Church, 
not  as,  but  better  than  himself,  for  "  He  loved  the  Church 
and  gave  himself  for  it."     "  Love  one  another  as  I  have 
loved  you,"  saith  he :  "  Grreater  love  hath  no  man  than 
this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friend." 

2.  This  love,  this  Communion,  may  exist  truly  and  per- 

*  See  Appendix  C. 

t  Coleridge's  Aids  to  Reflection,  p.  325. 


APART   FROM  ALL    SYMBOLS.-  43 

fectly  where  there  is  and  can  be  no  interchange  of  any 
particular  tokens  of  fellowship.  This  has,  in  substance, 
been  already  shown,  for  our  fellowship  with  the  saints  in 
light,  and  with  Christ,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  is  of  this 
spiritual  character.  Our  fellowship  with  the  saints  on 
earth  as  such,  our  ^^  brethren  whom  we  have  seen,''  may 
be  of  the  same  nature  in  this  respect,  with  those  whom 
'^  we  have  not  seen.'' 

This  may  be  the  case,  even  although  our  earthly  fellow- 
ship be  much  more  close  and  sympathizing  than  that 
which  we  have  with  the  saints  in  glory.  The  great  cloud 
of  witnesses  in  heaven,  bending  from  their  lofty  seats, 
may  sympathize  with  us,  because  they  have  passed  through 
our  state  of  trial,  but  we  cannot  so  well  sympathize  with 
them,  not  having  yet  attained  to  their  excellence  and 
holiness,  and  they  not  being  encompassed,  as  we  are,  with 
infii'mities.  But  our  brethren  in  the  flesh,  however  holy, 
are  imperfect  still ;  they  need  our  prayers,  they  are  com- 
forted and  sustained  by  our  love.  They  are  often  mate- 
rially assisted  by  our  efforts,  and  stimulated  by  our 
example.  Hence,  we  can  assist  and  sympathize,  and 
therefore  commune  with  them  more  perfectly.  And  yet, 
notwithstanding  all  this.  Communion  of  spirit  is  easily 
distinguishable  from  any  particular  tokens  or  symbols  of 
Communion. 

There  is  needed  in  the  present  day,  a  greater  feeling  of 
oneness  among  Christians  of  every  name  and  denomina- 
tion; one  existing,  primarily  at  least,  apart  from  signs 
and  tokens. 

3.  This  need  not,  and  would  not,  in  any  degree  inter- 
fere with  a  fii*m  maintenance  and  vindication  of  denomi- 
national peculiarities,  or  church  customs.  Should  we  not 
rather  trust  a  man  who  was  warmly  and  actively  attached 


44  COMMUNION. 

to  his  family  and  kindred,  to  be  a  fast  friend  in  the  hour 
of  adversity,  than  he  who  had  no  particular  zeal  or  love 
for  any  one,  and  was  almost  indifferent  to  his  own  wife 
and  children  ?  So  it  is  a  good  general  rule,  that  unless  a 
Christian  love  his  own  church,  and  his  own  denominational 
peculiarities,  warmly  and  strongly ;  unless,  in  their  place, 
he  maintains  them  firmly  up  to  the  measure  of  truth  and 
justice,  he  will  not  prove  very  warmly  attached  to  the 
cause  of  Christ,  or  the  true  fellowship  of  Christians  as 
such.  No  genuine  Christian  love  will  he  promoted  by 
attempting  to  break  down  Church  peculiarities. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  where  party  zeal  is  a  blinding 
thing,  infidels  mock  while  Christians  quarrel.  Every 
noisy  controversy,  all  the  selfishness  of  mere  sectarian 
zeal,  all  the  quibbles  and  the  quirks,  the  party  manoeu- 
vring and  scheming,  the  pride  and  tricking  of  sectarianism, 
(and  there  is  far  too  much  of  this,)  rend  and  mar  the 
Communion  of  saints,  the  true  and  proper  fellowship  of 
those  to  whom  Christ  said,  "  by  this  shall  all  men  know 
that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  toward 
another. '^ 

That  there  must  be  different  denominations,  so  long  as 
there  are  different  opinions  on  essential  truths,  or  on  the 
divinely  instituted  order  of  the  churches,  is  to  us  clear. 
Truth  must  be  upheld.  Each  Christian  must  follow  the 
truth  of  God  for  himself,  so  far  as  he  see  it,  not  loving 
the  errors  of  good  men,  because  he  loves  them ;  not  fol- 
lowing a  multitude,  even  of  the  most  pious,  to  do  any 
thing  forbidden,  or  to  omit  what  is  commanded  him  by 
the  Word,  the  Spirit,  or  his  own  conscience.  That  there 
must,  and  ought  to  be  an  ever  increasing  number  of  par- 
ticular churches,  in  proportion  to  the  greater  number  of 
Christians,  is  quite  clear,  if  only  from  local  causes ;  and 


BAPTIST    PRINCIPLES    MOST   FAVORABLE.  45 

the  members  of  each  of  these  must  uphold   what  they 
believe  to  be  truth. 

4.  But  we  may  have  true  Christian  fellowship  with 
many  whom  from  other,  as  well  as  local  causes,  we  cannot 
join  in  Church  fellowship ;  and  those  churches  are  to  be 
regarded  as  having  most  truth  and  piety  that  have  the 
most  extensive  fellowship  and  real  love  for  Christians, 
as  such,  apart  from  the  name  they  bear.  Take  those 
denominations,  beginning  at  the  Roman  Catholic,  who  are 
the  most  proud,  the  most  selfish,  the  most  contemptuous 
of  others,  and  those  are  the  sects,  and  those  the  Churches, 
that  have  the  least  of  the  life  of  religion.  Men  of  the 
world,  the  mass  of  Christians  even,  do  not  go  into  nice- 
ties, but  they  can  easily  see  the  spirit  that  is  manifested. 
If  it  is  a  spirit  of  love  for  those  who  love  Christ  and  bear 
his  image  as  such  ;  it  is  a  good,  a  Christian  spirit.  ^^  By 
this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye 
have  love  one  toward  another.^^  How  far,  as  Baptists, 
we  may  have  actually  attained  to  the  practice  of  this 
grace,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say ;  but  that  our  princii^les  are 
more  favorable  to  its  developments  than  those  probably 
of  any  other  denomination,  admits,  we  think,  of  demon- 
stration. We  never  baptize  any  persons,  until  we  first 
believe  them  to  be  true  Christians.  Hence  we  are  obliged, 
in  each  instance,  to  keep  Christian  and  Church  fellowship 
distinct,  and  to  have  the  former  kind  of  Communion  with 
them  prior  to,  and  apart  from  receiving  them  to  the  lat- 
ter. Pedobaptism  tends  rather  to  destroy  this  distinction 
of  feeling.  Especially  is  this  the  case,  when  Baptism  is 
supposed  to  confer  Christian  character. 

5.  With  all  true  Christians,  we  ought  to  cherish  and 
cultivate  a  spiritual  communion  as  our  strongest  and  most 
powerful  feeling.     We  should  strive  to  promote  it  by  all 


46  COMMUNION. 

consistent  means.  Properly  carried  out,  it  will  not  be 
found  to  interfere  with  our  more  immediate  duties  to  the 
particular  Church  of  which  we  are  members. 

Let  Christians  pray,  and  preach,  for  and  with  each  other ; 
let  them  '^  speak  often  one  to  another '^  of  heart  expe- 
riences of  religion.  Is  a  church  revived  ?  Let  her  not 
be  selfish,  and  unwilling  for  other  congregations  to  share 
in  the  good  work,  and  catch  the  heavenly  flame  from  her 
altar,  but  rather  let  her  pray  that  it  may  be  so.  Let  her 
members  and  ministry  urge  others  to  use  the  means  which 
they  have  found  successful.  And  let  all  the  other  churches 
around,  praise  God  for  it,  as  a  blessing  to  them,  and  pray 
that  it  may  extend  to  them  also.  Let  them  exercise  no 
narrow  and  sectarian  jealousy,  as  if  they  would  prefer 
that  people  should  remain  unconverted,  rather  than  be 
converted  to  any  creed  but  their  own.  Is  a  church  divi- 
ded, or  tried  ?  Let  others  sympathize  and  weep,  and  never 
aim  to  exaggerate  and  foment  the  disorders  of  their  bre- 
thren, or  tear  open  their  wounds. 

It  is  the  want  of  this  kind  of  spiritual  interchange  of 
aff'ections  among  the  different  congregations  and  denomi- 
nations in  our  towns  and  villages,  it  is  the  scheming  and 
selfishness,  the  grasping  sectarianism,  trying  in  every  way 
to  get  the  advantage,  and  regarding  all  others  as  in  anta- 
gonism, that  cuts  at  the  root  of  true  Christian  fellowship 
and  real  communion,  such  as  we  all  feel  with  the  saints  in 
glory,  and  hope  to  enjoy  in  eternity  with  every  Christian. 
This  is  the  spirit  which  makes  infidels  rejoice  and  angels 
blush. 

There  is,  it  is  true,  a  momentary  success  which  seems 
to  attend  all  this  grasping.  Strenuous  exertions  will  pro- 
duce a  certain  effect.  But  the  motive  will  soon  be  dis- 
covered, and  the  means  rejected  as  an  imposture.     The 


HOW   TO    PROMOTE    IT.     "  47 

mass  of  people  never  yet  could  be  convinced  that  such  is 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  It  may  be  set  down  as  a  certain 
rule,  that  where  there  is  most  bitterness  of  spirit,  most 
manoeuvring  and  scheming,  there  is  least  of  truth  and 
least  of  piety.  These  are  the  resorts  and  refuges  of  that 
conscious  weakness  that  cannot  bear  honest  investigation. 
So  it  is  also  certain,  that  where  there  is  most  real,  ear- 
nest love,  most  simplicity,  candor,  and  spirituality,  there 
is  most  truth,  most  of  that  Charity  which  is  the  bond  of 
perfectness,  most  of  that  ^^  communion  of  saints",  which  is 
one  of  the  clearest  evidences  and  noblest  features  of 
Christianity. 


CHAPTER  yi. 

CHURCH    COMMUNION^    OR    FELLOWSHIP. 

1.  Its  imtui-e.  2.  Its  proper  subjects.  3.  The  two  objects  of  it.  4.  De- 
signed to  promote  the  inety  of  the  members.  5.  Unreasonable  expecta- 
tions in  regard  to  it.  6,  Evil  effects  of  such  expectations.  7.  Modem 
and  Primitive  Churches  compared.  8.  We  need  a  fellowship  more 
sympathizing  in  temporal  matters.  9.  Church  fellowship  ought  to 
include  a  complete  vindication  of  character.  10.  It  should  promote 
the  proprieties  of  Christian  intercourse.— 11.  Church  fellowship  as  an 
instrument  of  converting  sinners.  12.  A  proper  Esprit  du  Corps. 
13.  Its  power.  14.  The  duty  of  joining  a  Church.  15.  Summary  of 
Part  I. 

1.  We  have  seen  tliat  tlie  word  Cliurcli  is  used  in  two 
distinct  senses ;  first^  for  the  wliole  body  of  believers  in 
Christ,  the  Church  Universal  or  Invisible ;  and  secondly, 
for  a  particular  visible  congregation  of  believers,  habitually 
associating  for  worship,  and  uniting  in  the  ordinances  of 
the  Christian  religion.  In  the  present  chapter,  we  are 
about  to  speak  of  the  Communion,  {.  e.  the  spiritual  fel- 
lowship peculiar  to  the  members  of  these  latter  bodies 
within  themselves  respectively,  over  and  above  that  general 
fellowship  which  they  have  with  the  whole  body  of  the 
faithful  in  Christ. 

This  fellowship,  though  having  its  origin  in  the  more 
general  affection  which  binds  all  Christians  together,  is 
far  more  specific,  and  very  different  in  some  of  its  mani- 
festations; just  as  family  affection  may,  in  some  respects, 
be  analogous  to  that  general  love  of  Society,  which  makes 
social  intercourse  so  preferable  to  solitude,  while  yet  it  has 


DISTINCTION   OF   ITS   SUBJECTS.    '  49 

many  relations  peculiar  to  itself.     It  is  not  too  much  to 
say,  that  as  the  happiness  of  mankind  is  more  dependent 
upon  a  properly  regulated  family  affectioUj  than  upon  any 
of  the  more  general  feelings  which  bind  men  together,  as 
tribes,  as  nations,  or  as  human  beings, — so  to  Christians, 
in  the  present  state  of  existence,  the  proper  affection  of 
the  particular  members  in  the  churches  of  Christ  to  which 
they  respectively  belong,  is  productive  of  more  important 
effects  for  the  good  of  themselves,  and  for  the   extension 
of  the  cause  of  Christ,  than  the   most  correct  views  and 
feelings  as  to  their  more  remote  relations  to  '-'■  the  whole 
family  in  heaven  and  on  earth/^     These  separate  Churches 
of  Christ's  professed  people,  though  so  small  and  insignifi- 
cant, so  widely  and  irregularly  scattered  through  the  whole 
earth,  do  yet  produce  the  most  powerful  effects  upon  man- 
kind.    They  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,  and  the  light  of  the 
world,  the  leaven  that  is  ever  working   and   permeating 
and  fermenting  the  surrounding  mass,  infusing  into  it  the 
most  heavenly  activities. 

2.  There  is,  as  was  shown  in  a  previous  chapter,  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  proper  suhjects  of  Christian  and  of 
Church  fellowship,  the  former  extending  to  all  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ  in  heart,  whether  members  of  any  visible 
Church  or  not,  the  latter  subsisting  between  those  v>'ho 
make  a  credible  and  appropriate  profession  of  faith  in 
Christ,  whatever  may  be  the  state  of  their  hearts,  and  who 
are  in  the  habit  of  associating  for  the  promotion  of  their 
mutual  piety,  and  the  extension  of  the  Redeemer's  king- 
dom. There  are  also  other  important  distinctions.  Chris- 
tian fellowship  is  more  extensive ;  Church  fellowship  more 
definite.  The  one  contains  perhaps  a  more  spiritual  sen- 
timent, but  the  other,  a  more  stirring  and  practical  effi- 
ciency. If  indeed  the  latter  is  more  artificial  and  earthly, 
5 


50  COMMUNION. 

it  is  for  that  reason  more  visible,  tangible,  and  better 
adapted  to  the  present  state  of  human  nature, — of  the 
Churcb  and  of  the  world.  The  purely  spiritual  commu- 
nion of  the  whole  true  Church  of  Christ,  may  suit  the 
peaceful  and  triumphant  state  of  glory  in  heaven,  where 
there  is  no  enemy  to  oppose,  or  discipline  to  be  carried 
on ;  but  the  more  visible  fellowship,  though  circumscribed 
by  place  and  time,  professions  and  ordinances,  is  far  better 
adapted  to  the  militant  state  of  Christ^s  followers  upon 
earth.  When  a  town  is  besieged,  or  a  country  is  in  a 
state  of  insurrection,  the  stringency  of  military  law  affords 
the  greatest  real  liberty  for  all,  compatible  with  their 
security.  Or,  to  recur  to  a  former  figure,  as  the  pros- 
perity of  society  in  the  aggregate,  is  best  promoted  by 
the  citizens  all  segregating  themselves  into  families,  for 
the  enjoyment  of  household  comforts,  the  education  of 
the  young,  and  the  accumulation  of  property ;  and  as  thus 
a  nation  attains  to  a  higher  degree  of  riches  and  happi- 
ness, morality  and  refinement,  than  it  could  under  any 
other  social  system,  more  compact  and  central,  whether  that 
of  ancient  Sparta  or  of  a  modern  Fourier, — even  so  the 
prosperity  and  progress  of  the  Universal  Church  will  be 
best  promoted  by  the  distinct  and  independent  organi- 
zation of  visible  Churches. 

3.  The  oljecfs  of  the  peculiar  fellowship  of  Church 
members,  as  such,  are  two.  To  promote  piety  among 
themselves,  and  to  convert  others.  We  offer  a  few  remarks 
on  each  of  these  points. 

4.  First,  as  to  the  fellowship  of  a  visible  church,  so 
far  as  it  is  designed  to  promote  the  piety  and  grace  of 
its  own  members.  Some  have,  indeed,  very  unreasonable 
expectations  in  regard  to  this  fellowship,  desiring  it  to 
be  closer  than  it  ever  can  or  ought  to  be  on  earth.     They 


UNREASONABLE   EXPECTATIONS.  61 

would  wish,  for  instance^  such  a  oneness  among  the  mem- 
bers of  a  Church,  as  would  break  down  all  individuality 
of  character.  There  are  not  probably  any  in  our  Churches 
now,  who  carry  this  to  the  extent  of  desiring  a  community 
of  property.  But  some  professors  of  religion  would  wish 
all  acquaintances,  and  all  the  familiar  intercourse  of  private 
friendship  in  common,  and  expect  all  the  members  of  a  church 
to  be  equally  unreserved  and  unqualified  in  the  concerns 
of  private  life.  They  are  jealous  of  those  more  intimate  with 
others  than  with  them,  and  are  disposed  to  regard  private 
friendships,  and  particular  attachments  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,  as  so  many  violations  of  a  proper  fellowship. 

5.  This  is  altogether  unreasonable.  It  arises  sometimes 
from  a  shallow  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures,  and  then 
a  closer  study  of  the  Bible  will  correct  it.  Let  any  man 
read  the  Epistles,  and  he  will  see  that  even  the  intimacy 
of  the  Apostles  was  not  alike  with  all.  Paul  preferred 
Silas  to  Mark,  and  had  a  personal  warmth  of  friendship 
for  Priscilla  and  Aquilla,  that  he  had  not  with  every 
Christian.  John  was  emphatically  ^^the  beloved''  of  Jesus, 
and,  with  Peter  and  James,  enjoyed  more  of  his  intimacy 
than  the  rest.  We  would  even  put  the  young  Christian 
on  his  guard  against  expecting,  suddenly  at  any  rate,  a 
perfect  communion  with  all  his  brethren,  even  in  the 
holiest  church  on  earth.  A  Christian  is  a  man  who  must 
dare  to  be  singular,  must  dare  to  stand  alone,  and  walk 
alone  with  Grod  in  prayer,  with  conscience  in  self-com- 
munion. He  must  be  careful  not  to  make  Christians, 
but  Christ  his  guide.  He  must  follow  the  Bible,  and 
light,  and  truth,  and  duty,  wherever  they  may  lead  him, 
and  without  regard,  beyond  a  certain  point,  to  the  feelings, 
or  the  friendships,  or  the  practices,  even  of  the  members  of 
his  own  church. 


52  COMMUNION. 

6.  There  is  a  weakness  about  most  Christians  here,  that 
keeps  them  ever  in  leading  strings,  and  makes  them  think 
it  hardly  proper  to  hold  an  opinion,  or  to  practice  a  virtue, 
beyond  what  their  church  requires.  This  it  is  that  makes 
our  religion  so  dwarfish,  our  devotion  so  weak.  They  fol- 
low Christians,  not  Christ.  They  go  as  far  as  the  church 
to  which  they  belong,  make  the  average  of  its  piety  their 
standard,  but  go  no  further,  and  attain  no  higher.  The 
stream  cannot  rise  above  its  fountain,  but  may  fall  below; 
and  such  a  communion  as  this,  destroying,  as  it  must, 
the  individuality  of  Christian  character,  levelling  down- 
wards the  noblest  spirits  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  puts 
all  upon  a  Procrustes'  bed,  to  shape  them  according  to  the 
newest  pattern  of  orthodoxy.  All  this,  however,  is  not  to 
be  identified  with  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  Church  Com- 
munion. 

7.  "Were  we  to  compare  our  present  Churches  with  those 
of  primitive  times,  we  should  perhaps  find  that  our  mem- 
bers live,  upon  an  average,  in  even  greater  regularity  of 
outioard  deportment,  peace  and  harmony,  than  anciently. 
Not  even  in  these  things  as  they  ought,  not  as  did  the 
Apostles,  and  holier  members  and  ministers,  but  more  than 
a  large  part  of  the  professors  of  those  times  actually 
attained.  We  cannot  forget  that  there  were  serious  dis- 
orders and  divisions  in  the  first  Churches,  Jewish  teachers, 
doting  about  strifes  and  fables,  and  endless  genealogies, 
and  meats  and  drinks  and  new  moons.  Things  were  suf- 
fered in  the  first  Churches,  that  would  not  for  a  moment 
be  tolerated  now.  There  was  the  thief  at  Ephesus,  of 
whom  St.  Paul  wrote,  ^^  let  him  that  stole,  steal  no  more.'' 
There  was  the  incestuous  man  at  Corinth.  There  were 
those  who,  even  at  the  Lord's  Table,  took  ^^  each  before 
other  his  own  supper,  and  one  was  hungry  and  another 


MODERN   AND    PRIMITIVE    CHURCHES.  53 

drunken."  It  must  at  least  be  concededj  that  great  as  are 
the  faults  of  our  present  Churches,  they  are  more  regular 
and  orderly  than  all  this  would  indicate.  And  these  cases 
are  no  doubt  left  on  record,  in  order  that  Christians  may 
not  plead  the  inconsistencies  and  errors  of  Church  mem- 
bers now,  as  an  excuse  for  not  uniting .  themselves  to  a 
society  constituted  on  the  same  principles  with  those  to 
which  holy  Apostles  scrupled  not  to  attach  themselves. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  have  not  the  errors  and 
divisions  of  the  early  Churches,  neither  have  we  their  life 
nor  their  love.  If  we  have  not  their  strife  and  their  fail- 
ings, neither  have  we  their  Christian  faithfulness,  or 
affectionate  zeal,  rebuking  and  reproving.  They  could 
afford  to  take  in  rough-hewn  Christians,  full  of  faults  and 
inconsistencies,  as  we  cannot  afford,  seeing  that  they  in 
the  zeal  of  their  holy  affection  would  reprove  and  exhort 
them  with  a  vigor  of  discipline,  in  which  we  are  altogether 
lacking.  They  melted  them  down,  and  they  moulded 
them  over;  and  they  turned  them  out  as  quickly  as  they 
took  them  in,  if  heretical,  contumacious,  or  schismatic. 
Our  church  life  is  a  petrified  life.  It  is  said  that  in 
Sweden,  a  physician  has  discovered  a  process  of  applying 
gradually  increasing  degrees  of  cold  to  all  kinds  of  ani- 
mals, from  lizards  up  to  man,  and  thus  reducing  them  to  a 
perfectly  torpid  state,  without  destroying  life.  Some  cul- 
prits of  the  government  have  been  taken  through  these 
different  stages,  and  so  long  as  kept  at  the  proper  temper- 
ature, preserved  insensible  for  weeks,  months,  and  even 
years ;  after  which  by  restoring  warmth,  they  have  been 
brought  back  to  consciousness.  The  fellowship  of  Church 
members  thus  exists,  all  petrified  and  frozen  up  for  long 
periods.  It  is  not  dead.  It  is  there.  It  is  alive ;  but 
only  now  and  then,  after  months  and  years  of  torpor,  is  it 

5* 


54  COMMUNION. 

thawed  out  into  consciousness  and  activity.  There  is  in 
our  Churches,  a  mysterious  energy,  that  only  needs  waking 
up.  There  is  a  real  life,  a  something  between  which  and 
the  spiritual  death  of  false  and  formal  systems  of  religion, 
there  is  placed  an  immeasurable  and  impassable  gulf. 
Still  it  is  only  a  spark  of  life.  It  wants  waking  up,  draw- 
ing out,  and  fanning  to  a  flame. 

We  pause  to  specify  some  of  those  things  which  are 
needed  to  render  our  Church  fellowship  more  efficient,  and 
like  that  enjoined  in  the  New  Testament. 

8.  "We  need  a  Church  fellowship  that  shall  be  more 
sympatliizing  and  comjmssionate,  in  temporal  matters,  to 
those  members  who  need  assistance.  There  is,  indeed, 
much  of  this  compassion  exhibited  every  where  in  this 
country,  and  beyond  what  is  common  in  any  other.  But 
while  there  is  much  of  this  love  to  man  as  man,  and  to  a 
neighbor  as  a  neighbor,  there  is  little  to  a  member  of  the 
same  Christian  Church  as  such,  beyond  this  general  social 
feeling.  The  cup  of  cold  water,  even  when  given  to  a 
disciple,  is  not  given  to  him  in  the  name  of  a  disciple. 
Numerous  are  the  societies  formed  and  flourishing  in  our 
cities,  towns,  and  villages,  for  the  especial  purpose  of  afford- 
ing mutual  support,  visiting  the  sick,  burying  the  dead, 
educating  the  orphan,  or  encouraging  particular  reforma- 
tions. If  one  of  the  members  of  these  fraternities  is  sick 
or  suffering,  he  is  visited,  nursed,  and  relieved,  as  the  case 
may  require  ]  or  if  he  dies,  is  buried  by  his  Order.  But 
a  Church  of  Christ,  whose  comprehensive  relations  to  her 
members  involves  far  more  of  these  duties  than  any  other 
society  on  earth,  will  often  neglect  these  to  a  degree  which 
would  bring  disrepute  on  any  other. 

Now  we  believe  that  the  heart  to  perform  these  offices 
exists  nowhere  so  strongly  as  in  Christian  Churches,  and 


IN    TEMPORAL   MATTERS.  55 

it  is  only  from  tlie  lack  of  system  in  our  arrangements, 
that  so  mucli  of  all  this  goes  undone.  A  Christian  may  be 
sick  and  require  nursing  and  kind  attention,  and  though 
belonging  to  a  Church,  he  will  often  be  neglected  to  a 
degree  that  he  would  never  have  been  in  primitive  times. 
There  were  orders  of  men  and  women  anciently  appointed 
to  these  very  duties,  even  to  digging  the  graves  of  Chris- 
tians.* A  large  proportion  of  the  funds  of  the  Church 
were  also  appropriated  for  these  purposes.  This  it  was 
that  won  for  Christians  the  love  of  all  mankind,  and 
caused  them  to  grow  so  rapidly.  And  not  only  in  pecu- 
niary matters,  but  in  all  the  duties  of  mutual  service  and 
benevolence,  was  this  spirit  manifested.  To  belong  to  a 
Christian  Church  was  to  be  one  of  a  society,  each  of  whom 
loved  the  other  with  a  new  love,  and  in  a  peculiar  degree, 
and  who  strove  constantly  to  forward  each  others'  interests. 
Our  union  is  too  often  a  merely  spiritual  or  rather  nominal 
thing )  a  mere  intellectual  fiction.  We  meet  at  the  Lord's 
Table,  and  there  we  shake  hands  and  unite  in  prayer,  and 
are  warm  friends  inside  the  Church  doors.  But  how  is  it 
in  the  street,  in  the  transactions  of  business  ?  There  is 
sometimes,  we  fear,  a  sharpness  in  making  bargains  and 
trading,  and  a  selfishness,  not  to  say  an  over-reaching, 
wherever  there  is  opportunity,  that  destroys  the  unbounded 
confidence  which  should  exist  in  a  Christian  brother,  as  a 
Christian  brother.  There  are  men  of  the  world  of  such 
integrity,  that  a  person  would  prefer  to  trust  their  honor 
in  dealing  for  a  tract  of  land  or  for  a  house,  rather  than 
the  virtue,  love,  friendship,  and  word,  of  a  Christian  bro- 
ther united.  The  word  of  a  Christian  ought  to  be  suffi- 
cient assurance  that  what  is  said  is  not  only  true  and 
honorable,  in  everything,  but  that  there  is  as  much  con- 

*  See  Bingham's  Christitin  Antiquities,  Bk.  23,  chap.  3,  sect.  7. 


bb  COMMUNION. 

sideration  of  a  brother's  interest,  as  truth,  justice,  and  the 
proprieties  of  the  case  will  admit. 

9.  There  is  also  wanting,  in  our  Church  fellowship, 
such  a  hrotlierly  feeling  as  shall  jwoduce  a  complete  vincli' 
cation  and  maintenance  of  the  characters  of  the  worthy, 
and  the  rejection  of  the  unworthy  altogether  from  our 
Churches.  If  a  member  of  a  Christian  Church  hear  any 
thino;  ao-ainst  the  character  of  another  member,  he  should 
feel  it  a  wound  upon  his  own,  until  he  is  vindicated.  He 
ought  to  be  affected  as  he  would  if,  in  society,  his  own 
brother  were  accused  of  some  dishonorable  transaction. 
Would  he  not  in  such  a  case,  go  and  tell  him  what  was 
being  whispered,  and  urge  and  assist  him  to  clear  his  cha- 
racter? If  this  could  be  done  satisfactorily,  he  would 
cling  to  him  the  closer,  because  attacked  unjustly  and 
slanderously.  Or  if  that  brother  were  guilty  and  incor- 
rigible, he  would  retire  from  his  defence,  and  cease  to 
uphold  him  as  worthy  of  confidence.  So  with  a  Christian 
brother  whose  character  is  assailed,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Church  and  of  each  member  to  yindicate  him,  if  he  can 
be  rightly  vindicated,  not  listening  to  a  whisper  or  an  in- 
sinuation without  going  and  telling  him  of  it,  so  as  to 
give  him  opportunity  for  explanation.  If  he  be  innocent, 
let  them  put  down  all  evil  and  malicious  insinuations ;  if 
not,  it  is  their  duty  to  withdraw  fellowship  from  such  an 
one,  that  their  own  character  may  not  be  implicated  in 
his  baseness.  But  the  suspicion  and  tattling,  the  whis- 
pering and  backbiting  which  a  man  himself  can  never 
reach; — from  these,  the  whole  fellowship  of  the  Church 
ought  to  protect  its  members  by  the  broad  shield  of  its 
high  character,  and  by  its  warm  and  living  union.  Herein 
is  one  of  its  greatest  benefits  and  delights,  that  it  is  a 
society  of  holy  persons,  full  of  love  and  sympathy,  ready 


PROPRIETIES    OF   CHURCH    INTERCOURSE.          57 

to  sustain  and  support  each  other  in  adversity^  while  they 
walk  piously  before  God^  and  faithfully  with  each  other. 

10.  There  needs  also  a  more  careful  observance  of  the 
'proprieties  of  Christian  intercourse,  especially  in  all  matters 
of  Church  action  ; — a  vigilant  attendance  on  many  duties, 
and  as  careful  a  forbearance  from  unauthorized  intrusion. 
A  punctual  attendance  on  all  the  meetings  of  the  church 
for  worship  and  for  business,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
solemn  duty  of  each  individual.  A  careful  forbearance 
from  tyranizing  over  a  conscientious  minority,  by  any 
undue  extension  of  their  power,  is  no  less  the  duty  of  the 
body.  A  majority,  by  pressing  a  measure  unnecessarily 
against  the  scruples  even  of  a  few,  may  be  the  cause  of 
schism  and  of  strife,  and  of  breaches  of  Christian  affec- 
tion in  others,  if  not  directly  guilty  of  them  themselves. 
A  Christian,  with  proper  views  of  communion,  will  rarely 
jiropose  any  measure  requiring  a  new  course  of  action,  for 
which  he  cannot  hope  to  obtain  the  unanimous  sanction  of 
the  Church,  unless  it  be  some  constitutional  matter,  in 
which,  not  to  act,  would  be  clearly  sinful.  Until  some 
course  of  procedure  can  be  devised  which  will  secure 
unanimity,  it  is  generally  best  for  all  to  agree  in  deferring 
action.  It  is  not  sufficient  that  a  majority  can  be  found 
to  support  a  particular  measure ;  for  a  packed  and  party 
majority  may  thus  be  obtained  in  favor  of  many  things 
which,  to  force  upon  a  conscientious  minority,  may  be 
destructive  of  all  communion  of  heart. 

11.  Secondly,  Church  Communion  or  fellowship,  is 
designed,  not  alone  for  the  edification  of  its  own  members. 
One  great  object  designed  by  Christ  in  instituting  Christian 
Chiirches  -was  thereby  to  convert  the  icorld.  These  living 
organizations  were  intended  to  effect  this  even  more 
directly,  than  the  written  word.     ^'  Ye  are  my  witnesses, 


58  COMMUNION. 

saith  the  Lord/'  ^^  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world/'     The 
Churches  are  the  chosen  instrumentalities  of  accomplish- 
ing his  purposes,  and  they  are  kept  in  a  militant  state, 
while  on  earth,  for  this  end.     Their  organization  is  essen- 
tially aggressive  in  its  object.     As  soon  as  they  lose  sight 
of  this  great  truth  their  own  yital  energy  dies  within  them. 
12.  A  serious  deficiency  of  our  modern  Church  fellow- 
ship is  the  want  of  more  of  what  may  be  termed  the 
Esprit  du  Corps  of  the  Christian  army.     It  is  not  enough 
that  there  be   "one  body.''     There  must  be  also  "one 
spirit"  to  animate  and  control  it.     Any  man  who  has  been 
in  battle  well  knows  that  everything  there  depends  on 
the  spirit  and  enthusiasm  of  the  officers  and  men.     It  is 
this  that  gives  them  the  desire  to  perform  every  operation 
in  the  best  possible  manner.     It  is  this  that  makes  the 
soldier  ready  to  die  at  his  post  rather  than  give  way,  and 
fulfill  honorably  every  duty   entrusted  to  him  as  if  the 
safety  of  the  whole  depended  upon  him  alone.     Thus  too 
in  the  army  of  Christ,  the  most  exact  order  and  regularity, 
for  the  good  of  others,  is  what  each  soldier  of  the  cross 
must  maintain,  while  a  member  of  the  Church  militant. 
There  are  many  duties  which  he  owes  to  the  body  of 
believers  to  which  he  belongs,  not  only  for  his  own,  or  for 
its  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  cause  of  Christ  in  the 
world.     Regular  attendance  on  the  Sabbath,  prayer  and 
church  meetings,  contributions  for  the  pecuniary  support 
of  public  worship  in  due  proportion  to  his  means  ]  resolu- 
tion to  stand  at  his  post,  and  do  his  duty  unmoved,  even 
if  all  others  turn  back,  are   some   of  these.     As  then  so 
many  of  the  obligations  of  Church  fellowship  are  for  the 
good  of  the  whole  cause,  rather  than  any  particular  sec- 
tion, no  delinquency  on  the  part  of  other  members  can  be 
an  excuse  for  the  Christian  in  neglecting  any  part  of  them. 


ITS    POWER   UPON    SOCIETY.  59 

He  is  ratlier  pledged  to  do  the  more,  that  is  to  see  that 
the  Church,  as  a  Church,  does  her  part  to  promote  the 
cause  of  Christ  in  the  earth ;  and  therefore  if  some  do  but 
little,  the  rest  should,  as  far  as  possible,  seek  to  make  good 
their  deficiency.  Certainly  the  neglect  of  others  can  never 
justify  the  Christian  in  doing  less,  for  though  the  commu- 
nion be  with  the  Church,  i1^  is  in  j)art  at  least  for  the 
benefit  of  the  world,  and  for  the  glory  of  the  cause  of 
Christ  as  a  whole.  A  Church  covenant  is  in  some  respects 
like  the  articles  of  partnership,  by  which  each  of  the  par- 
ties is  bound  not  only  to  act  in  a  particular  manner  toward 
the  other,  but  also  to  a  certain  extent  to  see  that  all  their 
joint  agreements  with  third  parties  are  fulfilled. 

13.  All  or  nearly  all  the  power  which  Christians  have 
upon  society,  is  from  their  Church,  as  distinct  from  their 
Christian  fellowship.  And  by  Church  fellowship,  we  mean 
that  family  affection  for  the  particular  Christian  society, 
with  which  they  are  by  the  Providence  of  God  associated, 
an  afi'ection  which  lies  behind  all  professions,  ceremonies 
and  symbols,  and  is  essentially  distinct  from  them,  though 
often  shining  through  and  blended  with  them.  It  is  the 
holy  fellowship  of  these  societies  as  such,  that  keeps  up 
the  true  worship  of  Grod  in  the  earth,  and  bears  a  various 
but  united  testimony  to  the  only  way  of  salvation,  to 
Christian  morality  and  Christian  doctrine.  To  its  affec- 
tionate guardianship,  have  been  committed  the  oracles  and 
ordinances  of  God.  The  testimony  also  of  a  number  of 
distinct  witnesses,  animated  by  one  spirit,  varying  on  a 
thousand  minor  points,  but  all  agreeing  on  the  most  im- 
portant, becomes  infinitely  more  weighty  than  that  of  any 
one  body  could  be,  however  imposing  the  multitude  it 
embraced,  or  however  splendid  the  monuments  of  its  piety 
and  learning. 


GO  COMMUNION. 

14.  From  this  it  will  be  also  sufficiently  obvious,  tliat 
it  is  tlie  duty  of  every  true  Christian  to  become  a  regular 
member  of  a  particular  visible  Church.  It  is  not  enough 
that  he  be  a  member  of  the  Church  Universal.  Special 
is  the  fellowship,  special  are  the  relations,  and  therefore 
the  blessings  reserved  for  believers  in  Christ,  assembling 
though  it  be  but  '■'■  two  or  th»ee"  in  his  name.  There  are 
some  who  cannot  see  this  ; — ''Why  cannot  I  be  a  Christian 
as  well  out  of  any  Church  V^  "Do  walls  make  Christians  ?'^* 
they  ask.  This,  at  least,  must  be  an  evident  and  sufficient 
answer, — that  if  one  Christian  may  argue  thus,  so  may  all, 
and  if  all  did,  we  should  have  no  churches,  no  sabbath 
bells,  no  assemblies,  no  ministry,  no  ordinances,  no  public 
discourses  or  prayers.  If  there  be  any  efficiency  or  ani- 
mating spirit  in  these,  either  for  the  comfort  of  believers 
or  the  conversion  of  sinners,  as  they  are  the  results  of  this 
more  special  communion,  so  it  is  the  duty  of  all  Christians 
to  support  the  visible  Churches  of  Christ.  That  many 
seemingly  pious  and  excellent  persons  omit  entirely  the 
duty  of  embracing  this  fellowship  by  a  public  profession 
of  religion,  is  alas,  too  well  known.  The  injury  such  do, 
both  to  themselves  and  others,  can  be  estimated  alone  by 
G-od.  In  some,  it  would  seem  as  if  they  thought  no  Church 
sufficiently  correct.  In  others,  it  is  doubtless  timidity  and 
distrust  of  themselves.  But  in  many  cases,  it  is  evidently 
a  fear  of  the  cross,  and  a  desire  to  live  as  much  like  the 
world  as  possible,  and  even  a  distaste  to  this  close  and 
holy  fellowship. 

The  sin  of  living  out  of  all  visible  Church  membership 
and  communion  is  not  sufficiently  brought  to  the  view  of 
Christians.  Those  who  do  so  may  wish  well  to  the  cause 
of  the  Redeemer  as  a  whole,  and  subscribe  liberally  to  all 

*  See  tlxe  Account  of  the  Baptism  of  Victorinus.    Appendix,  E. 


ITS   ESSENTIAL   NATURE.  61 

pious  institutions,  but  unless  tliey  walk  in  avowed  and 
earnest  Cliurch  fellowship,  they  utterly  fail  in  a  great  and 
important  duty.  For  it  is  the  open,  hearty,  warm  co-ope- 
ration of  the  pious,  that  gives  a  Church  all  its  power.  It 
has  no  authority  but  that  of  love.  It  has  no  prisons,  nor 
penalties,  nor  other  temporal  powers  at  its  command. 
What  keeps  it  alive  ?  What  is  the  source  of  its  strength  ? 
It  is  its  love,  its  fellowship.  Without  this,  it  is  but  a 
lifeless  formality,  a  figure  of  wax,  a  rope  of  sand.  May 
the  Lord  ^'  add  to  his  Churches  daily,  such  as  shall  be 
saved." 

15.  Such  is  Communion  in  its  essential  nature.  It  is 
a  spiritual,  not  a  ceremonial  thing.  It  consists  not  in  any 
symbols,  nor  can  it  be  confined  to  them.  It  may  at  times 
use  them  as  channels,  but  it  is  in  its  own  nature  too  ethe- 
rial  and  elastic  to  be  fettered  by  them.  It  will  exist  when 
time  and  symbols  are  all  no  more.  It  is  found  where  they 
are  absent.  "They  are  no  more  essential  to  it,  than  they 
are  to  salvation.  It  is  as  far  above  mere  ceremonial  Com- 
munion, as  the  heavens  are  above  the  earth.  It  is  a  por- 
tion of  heaven  to  be  found  on  earth.''  All  symbols  with- 
out this  are  cold  as  moonbeams,  and  animating,  only  as 
they  reflect  a  nobler,  higher  light.  But  this  is  like  the 
sun,  which  inspires  the  whole  scene,  and  gives  even  to 
ceremonies  and  symbols,  their  warmth,  their  lustre,  and 
their  life. 


PART  II. 

THE  SYMBOLS  OF  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER   I. 

NATURE    OF   SYMBOLS. 

1.  Definition  of  a  symbol.    2.  Simple  symbols.    3.  Complex  symbols. 

4.  Those  only  to  be  used  when  all  the  relations  are  as  represented. 

5.  Division  of  the  subject. 

1.  A  SYMBOL  is  an  emblem,  or  sign  by  which  any  moral 
truth  or  idea  is  intelligibly  represented. 

Whatever  emblem  or  action  is  designed  to  indicate  our 
fellowship  with  any  party,  is  a  symbol  of  that  fellowship. 
All  those  actions,  therefore,  by  which  we  express  our  Com- 
munion with  Christ,  or  with  Christians,  are  to  be  regarded 
as  symbols  of  our  Communion  with  them. 

2.  These  symbols  may  be  either  simple  or  complex.  A 
simple  symbol  represents  our  relations  with  one  and  but 
one  party.  Thus  when  in  private  prayer  we  bow  the 
knee,  it  is  a  symbol  of  this  class,  that  is,  of  Communion 
with  Grod  alone. 

3.  A  complex  symbol  represents  relations  with  more 
than  one  party.  When,  for  instance,  we  request  a  Chris- 
tian brother  to  lead  our  devotions,  our  uniting  in  that 
worship  symbolizes  our  fellowship  with  him,  as  a  sincere 
and  pious  man,  in  the  petitions  he  offers,  and  our  Commu- 
nion with  God  in  the  devotions  offered. 

4.  Where  any  symbol  represents  several  relations,  it  is 
not  sufficient  that  one  of  them  exist  in  reality  as  repre- 
sented by  the  symbol.  To  be  appropriate,  all  of  them 
must  subsist  in  the  measure  indicated.  For  example,  thie 
Lord's  Supper  is,  first  of  all,  a  symbol  of  our  participation 

6* 


6G  COMxMUNION. 

in  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ.  But  inasmuch  as 
it  also  indicates,  as  we  shall  show,  certain  relations  as  sub- 
sisting between  the  parties  who  celebrate  together,  it 
would  not  be  proper  for  those  persons  to  unite,  between 
whom  all  the  relations  indicated  did  not  exist,  however 
appropriate  the  symbol  might  be  so  far  as  it  related  to  the 
Great  Head  of  the  Church. 

5.  In  the  former  part,  we  have  seen  that  our  Commu- 
nion, as  followers  of  the  Lamb,  has  for  its  objects,  1st. 
Christ,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  and  2nd.  The  Church 
which  is  His  body;  this  latter  being  again  divisible  into 
1st.  Communion  with  Christians,  as  such,  and  2nd.  with 
the  members  of  some  particular  visible  Church.  Corres- 
ponding to  this,  the  Symbols  of  Communion  may  be  classified 
according  to  their  objects  thus, — 

I.  Symbols  or  Communion  with  Christ. 

II.  Symbols  of  Christian  Communion,  or  with 
Christians,  as  such. 

III.  Symbols  of  Church  Communion. 


CHAPTER   II. 

SYMBOLS   OF   COMMUNION   WITH   CHRIST. 

1.  These  are  various,  but  two  are  chief.  2.  Baptism,  the  first  of  these, 
a  simi^le  symbol.  3.  Ground  assumed  in  regard  to  Baptism.  4.  Bap- 
tism, a  symbolic  burial.  5.  Baptism,  a  putting  on  of  Christ. — Optatus. 
6.  The  Apostle's  idea.  7.  Importance  of  practically  uniting  the  sym- 
bol and  thing  signified.  8.  Baptism,  a  pledge — contains  a  reciprocal 
assui-ance.  9.  Importance  and  beauty  of  this  sjmibolic  ganuent. 
10.  The  Lord's  Supper,  a  symbol  of  frequent  recurrence.  11.  A 
fresh  acknowledgment  of  the  baptismal  profession — instituted  con- 
nexion between  them.  12.  A  complex  symbol.  13.  A  symbol  of 
communion  with  Christ.  14.  Meaning  of  6  or  J.  15.  A  re-afl&rmation  of 
the  baptismal  vow.  16.  Contains  a  reciprocal  assurance  of  our 
acceptance. 

1.  "We  have  seen  that  whatever  emblem  or  action  is 
designed  to  signify  our  Communion  with  Christ,  is  a  sym- 
bol of  that  Communion.  It  may  be  the  yielding  of  our 
bodies  to  an  emblematic  burial  in  a  watery  grave,  or  a 
participation  in  the  tokens  of  a  Saviour's  body,  broken, 
and  his  blood  shed  for  our  sins.  Passing  by  all  emblems 
of  human  device,  let  us  fix  our  minds  on  these  two  chief 
divinely  instituted  symbols  of  our  Communion  with  Christ, 
i.  e.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  For  these,  being 
appointed  by  Jesus,  become,  when  rightly  received,  sym- 
bols of  a  reciprocal'  Communion,  of  ours  with  Christ,  and 
of  Christ's  with  us. 

I.    BAPTISM. 

2.  This,  of  the  two,  most  nearly  approaches  to  the 
nature  of  what  we  have  termed  a  simple  symbol.     It  sym- 


68  COMMUNION. 

bolizes  our  union  with  the  Saviour^  and  so  to  speak, 
nothing  else.  Indirectly,  indeed,  it  may  seem  to  indicate 
a  spiritual  relationship  between  the  Minister  or  Church, 
through  whom  we  receive  it.*  In  a  world  in  which  all 
our  relations  are  so  complicated,  nearly  every  symbolic 
act  must  have  some  reference,  indirectly  at  least,  to  more 
of  them  than  one.  But  in  baptism,  all  other  relations  are 
so  secondary,  that  we  shall  here  consider  it  simply  in 
regard  to  the  Communion  it  expresses  with  Christ  the  Head 
of  the  Church,  (and  through  him  with  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Spirit). 

3.  We  have  no  space  here,  to  go  over  the  whole  Bap- 
tismal controversy.  We  rather  take  for  granted  therefore, 
than  attempt  to  prove  at  length,  (for,  apart  from  the  words 
bestowed  upon  it  in  controversy,  it  is  in  truth  a  very  plain 
case,)  firztj  that  Christian  baptism  as  a  symbol,  necessarily 
embraces  an  immersion  or  burial  of  the  body  in  water,  and 
secondly  J  that  the  chief  thing  symbolized  by  it  is  personal 
union  or  fellowship  with  Christ  by  faith.f 

4.  (1.)  It  is  unquestionably  in  allusion  to  the  sym- 
holic  part  of  baptism,  that  Paul  speaks  of  Christians  as 
"  Buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  wherein  also  they  arc 
risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.'^  (Col.  ii.  12.) 
Hence  he  also  says,  '^  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death?     Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism 

*  For  a  more  full  discussion  of  the  relations  indicated  between  the 
particular  Chiu'ch  and  ]\Iinister  through  Avhich  it  is  received,  and  the 
Candidate  in  Christian  Baptism,  the  author  refers  the  reader  to  an  arti- 
cle which  he  prepared  a  few  years  ago  for  the  Christian  Review,  and 
which  appeared  in  that  Journal,  July,  1846.    Art.  o. 

t  See  Appendix  D. 


WHAT   IS   SYMBOLIZED   IN   BAPTISM.  69 

into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life.'^  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  In  reference 
to  this  also,  he  speaks  in  the  next  verses  of  our  being 
"  planted  together'^  in  the  likeness  of  his  death  and  resur- 
rection. 

5.  (2.)  It  is  in  allusion  to  the  thing  symhoUzed  by  bap- 
tism, that  in  Gal.  iii.  27,  "  as  many  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ,'^  are  said  to  have  '^ put  on  Christ.'^  One  of 
the  early  Fathers  (Optatus)  in  commenting  upon  this  pas- 
sage, compares  the  Christian's  baptismal  profession  to  "  a 
garment  found  swimming  in  the  water,  that  is  always  one 
and  never  renewed,"  that  decently  fits  all,  "  not  too  large 
for  little  children,  nor  too  small  for  men,  and  without 
alteration  fits  women." 

6.  The  idea  of  the  Apostle  seems  to  be,  that  as  the 
spiritual  fellowship  with  Christ,  into  which  we  enter  at 
regeneration,  hides  all  our  sins  and  covers  us  in  his  right- 
eousness as  in  a  robe,  and  conforms  us  to  his  image  and 
likeness,  so  baptism  is  the  divinely  appointed  symbol  of 
all  this,  the  emblem  by  which  our  union  with  Him  is 
visibly  signified.  In  it  we  put  on  Christianity  outwardly 
and  before  the  world.  We  profess  our  fellowship  with 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  publicly  assume  his  uniform  and 
allegiance.  Mere  water  baptism  however,  administered 
without  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  where  it  is  not  a 
profession  of  personal  faith,  is  at  best  a  lifeless  ceremony, 
a  tame  and  vapid  thing.  But  where  the  inward  and  the 
outward  may  justly  be  presumed  to  correspond,  and  thus 
be  considered  together,  as  they  are  by  the  Apostle  in  the 
passage  above ; — where  through  the  transparent  drapery — 
the  outward  garment  of  profession,  shines  the  rich  vesture 
of  a  living  faith  within,  the  whole  assumes  a  symbolic 


70  COMMUNION. 

lustre  and  magnificence,  sufficient  fully  to  justify  the 
warmest  eulogium  of  the  Christian.  Not  too  extatic  to 
be  applied  to  it,  is  the  language  of  the  Prophet  when  he 
says,  '^I  will  greatly  rejoice  in  the  Lord,  my  soul  shall  be 
joyful  in  my  God  3  for  he  hath  clothed  me  with  the  gar- 
ments of  salvation,  he  hath  covered  me  with  the  robe  of 
righteousness,  as  a  bridegroom  decketh  himself  with  orna- 
ments, and  as  a  bride  adorneth  herself  with  her  jewels/^* 
7.  If  the  confounding  of  this  symbol,  and  the  thing 
symbolized  by  it,  led  the  early  Fathers,")"  as  unquestionably 
it  often  did,  to  attach  too  great  an  importance  to  the 
mere  baptism  of  water;  on  the  other  hand,  let  us  not 
forget  that  there  is  an  opposite  tendency,  sometimes  mani- 
fested, so  completely  to  separate  these  two,  that  the  symbol 
comes  to  be  regarded  quite  too  much  apart  from  the  truth 
it  signifies,  and  as  a  mere  meaningless  form.  Thus  all  due 
sense  of  its  worth  is  lost,  and  it  comes  to  be  regarded  as 
of  no  importance.  But  as  in  nature,  soul  and  body  are  so 
mysteriously  blended,  by  the  All-wise  Creator,  that  they 
cannot  be  separated,  without  so  etherealizing  the  one  that 
we  cannot  grasp  it,  and  reducing  the  other  to  a  loathsome 
mass  of  dust  and  decay,  so  in  the  New  Testament,  has  the 
Author  of  Eedemption  inwrought  the  spiritual  essence 
into,  and  clothed  it  upon  with  the  substantial  body  of 
symbol,  that  while  the  anatomists  of  spiritual  influences 
may  speculatively  separate  them,  to  ascertain  the  respective 
properties  of  each,  it  must  be  our  care  in  practical  life,  to 
keep  them  relatively  as  he  has  placed  them,  that  both  may 
thrive.  What  he  has  joined,  let  none  separate.  For  as 
by  the  union  of  two  in  marriage,  each  receives  a  benedic- 
tion, neither  could  obtain  alone,  and  both  have  bestowed 

*  Isaiah  Ixi.  10.  +  See  Appendix  E.    . 


BAPTISM   AS   A    SYMBOL.  71 

on  them  a  relationshipj  neither  had  before,  so  by  the  unit- 
ing of  the  spiritual  essence  of  baptism  with  its  appointed 
symbol,  both  the  consciousness  of  spiritual  communion 
becomes  more  clear  and  strong,  as  being  embodied  in 
visible  form,  and  the  visible  form  assumes  vitality,  color 
and  warmth  from  the  animating  spirit  within;  so  also  those 
who  rightly  receive  baptism,  not  only  in  it  give  to  the 
world  a  profession  of  their  faith,  but  also  obtain  thereby  a 
direct  Divine  assurance  and  pledge  of  Christ's  present  and 
eternal  fellowship  with  them,  a  ]pal][>al)le  covenant,  that 
assures  them  by  a  formal  act,  that  they  actually  are 
"heirs  of  God,  joint  heirs  with  Christ/^ 

8.  Indeed  even  this  is  not  a  full  view  of  the  importance 
of  Christian  Baptism,  as  it  is  placed  in  the  New  Testament. 
For  it  is  also  to  be  regarded,  on  our  part,  not  only  as  a 
profession  of  present  fellowship  with  Christ,  but  as  ?i  pub- 
lic pledge  before  the  Church  of  Grod,  and  men  and  angels, 
of  our  whole  future  course.  The  baptized  is  regarded  by 
the  Apostle  Paul,  as  having  by  this  act,  placed  himself 
under  a  moral  and  public  obligation,  to  live  a  new  and 
holy  life.  Speaking  of  baptism,  Paul  adds  therefore, 
"Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed 
unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  Grod,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body, 
that  ye  should  obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof."  (Rom.  6: 12.) 

9.  A  pious  mind  properly  instructed,  will  never  think 
lightly  of  this  ordinance,  or  regard  it  as  of  no  importance, 
because  a  symbol.  How  can  it  be  a  matter  of  indifference  ? 
In  it  we  enter  into  a  public,  solemn,  and  Divinely  ap- 
pointed covenant  with  Grod,  We  openly  dedicate,  and 
consecrate  ourselves  to  be  his.  Baptism  is  the  act  of  con- 
secration. Those  who  are  living  in  the  neglect  of  baptism 
therefore,  are  living  in  the  neglect  of  this  consecration. 


72  COMMUNION. 

They  who  through  indifference,  or  because  they  esteem  it 
a  matter  of  no  importance,  whatever  may  be  their  inward 
piety,  are  certainly  neglecting  to  put  on  Christ  publicly, 
in  the  divinely  appointed  way.  '^  As  many  of  us  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.^^  This 
divinely  appointed  confession  of  Christ,  animated  by  a 
true  faith,  is  a  garment  which  well  befits  all  Christians; 

"it  becomes 
The  crowned  Monarcli  better  than  his  crown." 

It  can  make  poverty  honorable,  decrepitude  and  old  age 
cheerful,  sickness  and  death  happy.  It  suits  all  ages  and 
gradations  of  intellect.  What  sight  on  earth  so  beautiful 
as  to  behold  the  young  and  lovely  descending  into  the 
waters  of  baptism,  yielding  up  their  hearts  and  lives  to 
the  service  of  the  Saviour,  ^'  putting  on  Christ."  It  be- 
seems well,  even  the  simplicity  of  childhood,  when  entered 
into  voluntarily  and  intelligently.  The  profession  of  the 
Gospel  suits  the  heart  and  life  of  a  child.  Sin,  repentance, 
forgiveness,  the  three  great  truths  symbolized,  are  the 
three  earliest  moral  ideas  it  can  understand. 

It  is  a  garment  that  will  adapt  itself  to  the  Christian's 
growth.  If  he  puts  on  Christ  while  a  child,  he  finds  when 
his  mind  is  cultivated  and  matured,  in  the  faith  to  which 
he  has  attached  himself,  that  which  affords  him  contem- 
plation, which  warms  his  heart,  and  shelters  it  from  the 
bleakness  and  coldness  of  the  world.  And  when  he  is  old 
and  ready  to  die,  and  all  the  other  relations  of  life  have 
changed,  and  all  his  other  fellowships  have  sundered  again 
and  again,  the  fellowship  symbolized  in  his  baptism 
remains  as  firm  in  texture,  and  as  sufficient  every  way  as 
at  first.  It  is  a  garment  that  never  wears  out;  but  like 
those  shawls  of  Cashmere  that  retain  their  colors  brilliant 


THE    lord's    supper   AS   A   SYMBOL.  73 

for  successive  generations;  is  unfading  and  resplendent  to 
the  very  last. 

This  garment  is  the  uniform,  divinely  appointed  for 
Christians  upon  earth.  It  is  intended  to  mark  them  as 
separate  from  the  world,  soldiers  of  the  Church  Militant, 
members  of  the  fraternity  of  Christians.  It  contains  a 
significance  and  mystery  that  angels  desire  to  look  into, 
and  that  shall  never  be  fully  unravelled,  until  Time  shall 
be  no  more,  and  unto  all  the  saints  is  granted  everlast- 
ingly to  be  clothed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white. 

Such  is  the  first  symbol  of  Communion  with  Christ ; 
Christian  Baptism. 

II.    THE   LOPtD's    SUPPER. 

10.  We  turn  now  to  consider  the  second  Divinely  ap- 
pointed symbol  of  our  Communion  with  Christ.  As  such 
it  differs  in  two  respects  from  baptism. 

First,  This  is  a  symbol  oifreqiient  recuvrence.  Baptism 
is  appointed  for  each  individual  once,  and  but  once.  The 
Lord's  Supper,  ^^  often ^  ^' As  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread, 
and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  forth  the  Lord's  death  till 
he  come."*  We  will  not  say  that  Baptism  confers  an 
indelible  character,  but  it  certainly  makes  an  indelible 
profession  and  vow.  It  pledges  the  candidate  to  be  Christ's 
for  life.  It  is  a  confession  that  can  never  be  retracted,  a 
step  never  to  be  retraced.  He  who  has  once  voluntarily 
taken  it,  must  if  he  possess  a  correct  moral  sense,  ever  feel 
that  he  has  "  opened  his  mouth  to  the  Lord,  and  cannot 
go  back.''  The  Lord's  Supper,  on  the  other  hand,  may 
and  ought  to  be  frequently  repeated.  The  first  Christians 
made  it  part  of  their  regular  worship.     It  symbolizes  our 

*   1  Cor.  1 1 :  26. 

7 


74  COMMUNION. 

renewing  covenant  with  God  and  Christ  from  time  to  time. 
It  assists  and  enables  ns  to  do  so. 

11.  In  its  relation  to  Baptism,  it  is  rather  like  the  rati- 
fication of  an  old  deed,  than  the  execution  of  a  new  one ; — 
the  acknowledgment  of  a  bond,  repeated  again  and  again 
at  different  times  and  places,  all  having  reference  to  some 
one  original  and  permanent  document.  On  this  account 
it  is  that  there  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  any 
person  coming  unbaptized  to  the  Lord's  Table.  Those 
who  knowingly  receive  this  ordinance  without  baptism, 
act  contrary  to  all  the  precedents  of  Holy  Scripture,  and 
to  the  instituted  relations  of  the  symbols. 

12.  Secondly,  the  Lord's  Supper  differs  from  Baptism, 
in  being  a  complex  instead  of  a  simple  symbol.  It  sym- 
bolizes first  and  chiefly,  as  also  does  baptism,  our  Commu- 
nion with  Christ.  But  it  also  symbolizes  directly,  as 
Baptism  does  not,  a  peculiar  fellowship  and  relation,  as 
subsisting  between  those  who  unite  together  in  this  ordi- 
nance. Baptism  is  an  individual,  the  Lord's  Supper  a 
social  ordinance.  Both  of  these  views  are  indicated  in 
1  Cor.  10:  16,  17. 

13.  In  the  present  chapter,  we  have  however,  only  to 
consider  the  former  of  these  relations  our  communion  with 
Christ.  This  is  indeed  the  first,  the  chief,  the  most  im- 
portant fellowship  signified.  ^'The  cup  of  blessing  which 
we  bless,  is  it  not  the  Communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ? 
The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  Communion  of 
the  body  of  Christ  V  The  Apostle  was  exhorting  Chris- 
tians not  to  partake  of  meats  offered  to  idols  in  their  tem- 
ples. Why,  because  the  idol  was  anything  or  the  meat 
offered  to  idols  capable  of  communicating  spiritual  taint  or 
infection  ?  No ;  but  because  in  partaking,  they  would  seem 
as  if  seeking  and  symbolizing  a  spiritual  communion  with 


PAUL'S   ILLUSTRATION    OF   THE   SYMBOL.  75 

the  idols,  by  giving  tlie  accustomed  token  of  so  doing. 
This  he  illustrates  in  ver.  18.     "  Behold,  Israel  after  the 
flesh,  are  not  they  which  eat  of  the  sacrifices,  partakers  of 
the  altar  T"^'  As  if  he  had  said,  do  not  they  who  eat  together 
of  the  sacrifices  ofi"ered  to  Jehovah,  betoken  to  the  world 
their  joint  worship  of  the  God  of  Israel  ?     In  ver.  16,  17, 
he  similarly  illustrates  his  argument  by  the  Lord's  Supper; 
'^  the  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  commu- 
nion of  the  blood  of  Christ  V     Is  it  not  a  token  by  which 
we  show  to  the  world,  our  communion  with  Jesus  ?  that 
we  are  partakers  of  the  precious  fruits  of  his  death  for  our 
sins  ?     The  bread  that  we  break,  is  it  not  a  token  that  we 
are  not  ashamed  to  be  considered  as  having  imbibed  the 
spirit  and  principles  of  the  Crucified  One  ?     Do  we  not 
thus  acknowledge  ourselves  to  be  joint  worshippers  with 
those  with  whom  we  partake.     If  they  by  partaking  sig- 
nify-this,  we  by  partaking  with  them  signify  it  also.  Such 
is  the  Apostle's  thought.     Idol  altars  and  temples  have 
crumbled  into  ruins  before  the  power  of  the  Cross,  and 
we  have  happily  no  use  here  for  the  Apostle's  argument 
against  partaking  of  idol's  food,  but  only  for  his  illustra- 
tion.    From  this,  it  will  be  apparent  that  when  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  cup,  being  '^  the  communion^'  of  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  the  bread,  ^'  the  communion"  of  the  body, 
he  intended  these  words  to  be  understood,  not  in  the  sense 
put  on  them  by  Roman  Catholics,  as  if  the  act  of  partak- 
ing was  a  communion  in  the  literal  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  but  that  it  was  a  symbolic  acknowledgment  to  the 
world  of  our  communion  and  faith  in  Christ;  just  as  the 
partaking  of  idol  meats  would  seem  an  acknowledgment 
of  communion  and  faith  in  idol  worship,  although  he  de- 

*  See  Macknight's  translation  of  verse. 


76  COMMUNION. 

clares  that  ^^  the  idol  is  nothing  in  itself,  neither  that  ichlch 
is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  the  idoV  So  neither  is  the  bread 
anything  in  itself,  nor  the  wine  anything  in  itself;  they 
are  but  tokens  to  the  world  of  that  Communion  we  profess 
to  feel  with  Christ  the  Head,  and  with  those  with  whom 
we  celebrate  in  Him.  Our  partaking  of  them  is  a  public 
act  of  worship  and  fellowship. 

14.  In  precisely  what  sense  the  bread  ^is'  the  Commu- 
nion of  the  body  of  Christ,  has  been  a  matter  of  fierce 
controversy.  "  This  is  my  body,'^  construed  literally,  has 
been  made  to  teach  the  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation.  Zwingle  on  the  other  hand,  put  beside  it  Ex.  12: 
11.  "Ye  shall  eat  the  Lamb  in  haste,  it  is  the  Lord's 
Passover."  Here,  he  argued,  the  Septuagint  £6Tfi  is,  can 
mean  nothing  else  than  "  signifies."^  Neander  most  truly 
expresses  the  sense  of  the  passage,  "  The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  Communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  ?  This  can  only  mean  that  it  marks,  it  represents 
this  Communion,  it  is  the  means  of  appropriating  this 
communion. "f  It  symbolizes  the  body  of  Christ;  and 
further  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  right  reception  of  Bap- 
tism becomes  to  us  an  act  by  which  we  obtain  more  than 
a  mere  outward  or  symbolic  blessing,  so  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  what  in  itself  might  be,  and  to  the  unworthy  is,  a 
mere  symbol,  becomes  in  the  right  reception  of  it  to  the 
child  of  faith,  a  means  and  act  of  true  and  living  Commu- 
nion with  the  Lamb  of  God. 

It  is  on  our  part  a  ratification  and  re-affirmation  of  the 
Baptismal  profession  and  pledge.  It  is  a  profession  of 
our  constant  communion  with  Christ,  of  our  feeding  by 
faith  upon  him.     As  every  one  one  needs  bread  daily,  and 

*  See  D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  iii.  p.  272. 
t  Planting  and  Training,  Bk.  6,  chap.  i.  p.  277 


THE   lord's   supper   AS   A   SYMBOL.  77 

as  the  bread  he  eats,  nourishes  his  body,  becomes  indeed 
incorporated  into  and  part  of  it,  as  the  wine  he  imbibes 
sustains  him,  so  do  we  imbibe  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and 
feed  upon  him,  our  souls  being  nourished  and  supported 
by  his  grace  and  his  doctrine,  especially  that  of  his  aton- 
ing sacrifice.  It  is  the  death  of  Christ  for  our  sins,  which 
is  the  great  sustenance  of  our  hopes  and  life  as  Christians. 
How  he  himself  taught  this,  see  his  memorable  discourse, 
John  6:  24—65. 

15.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  also  a  ratification  of  the  Bap- 
tismal pledge,  every  time  it  is  taken ;  a  vow  to  lead  a  holy 
and  Christian  life.  That  is  a  touching  passage  in  Pliny's 
letter  to  Trajan,  written  within  twenty  years  of  the  death 
of  the  Apostle  John,  in  which  he  tells  him,  that  he  can 
get  no  further  information  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
Christianity  than  that  its  followers  are  accustomed  to  meet 
on  a  certain  day  (the  Sabbath),  and  bind  themselves  ^^  by 
a  sacrament  not  to  commit  any  kind  of  wickedness  ]  to  be 
guilty  neither  of  theft,  robbery,  nor  adultery;  never  to 
break  a  promise,  or  to  keep  back  a  deposit  when  called 
upon.^^* 

The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  token  of  our  renewing  covenant 
with  Christ,  and  the  public  act  by  which  before  the  world 
and  the  Church,  we  re-affirm  the  consecration  and  dedica- 
tion of  ourselves  to  Christ,  made  in  baptism. 

16.  This  as  a  Divinely  appointed  symbol,  rightly  par- 
taken of,  contains  a  reciprocal  assurance  of  our  acceptance ; 
— of  our  being  the  very  persons  who  are  now  living  in  the 
enjoyment  of  the  pardon  jjurchased  by  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ.  It  is  as  sure  and  individual  a  token,  as  if  the 
symbols  were  sent  by  a  holy  angel  directly  from  the  throne 
of  Grod,  to  us  alone  and  set  before  our  very  faces.     It  is  a 

*  See  Appendix  F. 
7* 


T8  COMMUNION. 

token,  partaken  of  again  and  again,  to  repeat  the  assurance, 
and  render  tlie  sense  of  it,  habitual  and  certain. 

It  is  also  a  symbolic  pledge  and  promise  of  Christ's 
unchanging  love ;  that  he  changes  not  in  his  relations  or 
feelings,  but  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever. 
Its  voice  is  still  affirming  in  the  ear  of  faith  that  touch- 
ing and  beautiful  testimony  of  Jesus — '■'■  Having  loved  his 
own  which  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end.'' 
John  13:  1. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   SYMBOLS   OF   CHRISTIAN   COMMUNION. 

1.  Symbols  imperfect  and  partial.  2.  They  charge  in  their  symbolic 
character.  4.  Various  symbols  specified.  4.  The  same  original  term 
used  for  Contributions. 

1.  In  the  present  Chapter,  we  consider  the  symbols  of 
Communion  with  our  fellow-Christians,  as  distinct  from 
those  of  fellowship  with  Christ  the  Head  on  the  one  hand, 
and  from  Church  Fellowship  or  Communion  on  the  other. 
It  is  proper  to  remark  however, — 

(1.)  That  all  outward  symbols  must  necessarily/  he  hut 
imperfect  and  partial,  and  must  come  short  of  fully  repre- 
senting that  which  is  so  spiritual  in  its  nature  as  true 
Communion.  Even  words,  the  most  perfect  of  all  signs, 
fall  far  short  of  ideas  in  rapidity,  variety  and  power.  We 
shall  look  in  vain  therefore  for  any  one  perfect  token  of 
our  fellowship  with  all  Christians  as  such.  Union  in 
prayer,  the  great  symbol  of  Christian  Communion  in  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  is  but  an  imperfect  indication 
of  the  extent  of  our  fellowship.;  for  when  does  the  Chris- 
tian pray  with  all  whom  he  loves  as  the  children  of  God  ? 
How  often  does  he  even  pray  for  all  such  ?  The  petition 
cannot  grasp  every  particular,  and  he  who  prays  is  under 
the  necessity  of  segregating  certain  objects  to  place  them 
distinctly  before  his  own  mind.  Thus  the  prayer  of  the 
blessed  Saviour  (John  17,)  was  at  fii'st  limited  to  the  dis- 
ciples who  stood  around  him.  ^^  I  pray  not  for  the  world, 
but  for  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me  out  of  the  world.'' 


80  COMMUNION. 

In  that  case,  it  was  afterwards  more  extensively  added, 
^'  neither  pray  I  for  these  alone ;  but  for  them  also  who 
shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word/^  From  the  ab- 
sence of  some  particular  symbols,  the  absence  of  all 
Christian  Communion  is  not  therefore  to  be  inferred. 
Omissions  are  not  contradictions.  Communion  may  often 
rightly  exist,  without  all  the  possible  symbols  being  cele- 
brated, or  even  being  appropriate.  Better  is  this  than  the 
symbol  without  the  Communion. 

2.  (2.)  The  expressions  of  our  fellowship  change  much  as 
to  their  symbolic  character  in  different  ages  and  in  different 
circumstances.  The  Jewish  symbols  of  religious  fellowship 
were  done  away  by  divine  command,  when  they  had  lost 
their  significance  to  the  Jews,  and  from  being  symbols, 
had  come  to  be  regarded  as  the  things  signified.  Under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  particular  actions  are  symbols 
of  closer  fellowship  in  one  age  than  in  another.  The  same 
forms  may  be  used,  but  they  change  their  signification, 
and  with  it  in  measure,  their  propriety.  In  former  ages 
of  the  church,  that  is  from  the  close  of  the  second  century 
downwards,  until  heathenism  was  obliterated,  it  was  gene- 
rally, but  erroneously  supposed  by  almost  all,  that  Chris- 
tian fellowship  or  communion  consisted  chiefly  in  praying 
together.  Christians  would  never  unite  in  saying  ^^  Our 
Father  who  art  in  heaven,' '  would  not  even  pray  in  the 
same  house  of  worship,  with  those  whom  they  did  not 
consider  orthodox  Christians.  Heathens,  unbelievers,  he- 
retics, persons  suspended,  or  excommunicated,  even  cate- 
chumens or  candidates  for  baptism,  and  members  of  other 
sects  were  admitted  to  hear  the  Psalmody,  and  reading  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  discourses,  but  were  invariably 
excluded  from  the  building  before  the  prayers  of  the  church 
were  offered.     Our  views  of  prayer  are  much  more  just 


ACTS   OF   CHRISTIAN   COMMUNION.  81 

than  these.     Our  symbols  of  Christian  Communion  are 
far  more  various  and  discriminating. 

3.  Whatever  action  is  designed  to  indicate  to  the 
world^  or  to  the  parties  themselves,  our  Christian  fellow- 
ship with  thenij  is  a  symbol  of  Christian  Communion. 
Whether  it  be  uniting  with  them  in  Missionary,  Bible,  or 
Tract  Societies,  in  Evangelical  Unions  or  Alliances,  in 
Conventions  or  Associations,  the  interchange  of  the  reli- 
gious exercises  of  prayer  or  preaching,  all  or  any  of 
these  may  be  symbols  so  far  as  they  go,  of  Christian 
Communion.  Indeed  whatever  exhibits  the  peculiar  charity 
due  to  all  Christians,  as  such,  if  it  be  but  a  cup  of  cold 
water,  symbolizes  it.  These  form  its  active  developments. 
^'By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if 
ye  have  love  one  toward  another.'' 

4.  There  are  two  and  but  two  senses  in  which  the 
original  term  for  Communion  is  metaphorically  used  in 
the  New  Testament  for  different  outward  acts  of  Christian 
fellowship;  the  iSrst  where  it  is  put  for  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which  is  termed  "  the  Communion  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ."  The  second,  where  it  is  put  for  the  "  contri- 
butions'^  of  Christian  benevolence;  Bom.  15:  26.  The 
former  of  these  we  have  already  considered.*  In  regard 
to  the  latter,  it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  how  pecuniary 
contributions  came  to  be  designated  by  the  same  original 
term  that  is  used  for  fellowship  and  communion,  since  he 
who  has  true  communion  of  spirit  with  another,  will  be 
willing  to  '^  sJiare  in  co7m7ioii"  the  necessities  of  the  sufferer, 
and  his  own  means  of  supplying  them.  See  Bom.  12: 13; 
Hcb.  13:  16.  Hence  we  read  in  Bom.  15:  26.  ^at 
hath  pleased  them  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  to  make  a 

*  See  Appendix  G. 


82  COMMUNION. 

certain  contribution  [xoivuvCa)  for  the  poor  saints  which  are 
at  Jerusalem.  (See  also  2  Cor.  9:  13.)  Contributions  for 
the  support  of  the  ministry  and  of  missions  are  also  desig- 
nated by  the  same  term,  as  being  symbols  and  acts  of 
communion,  Gal.  6:6;  Phil.  4  :  4.  This  use  of  the  term 
is  not  at  all  confined  to  the  New  Testament. 

Such  contributions  may  be  either  for  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tian benevolence  generally,  as  for  missions,  or  for  our  own 
particular  Church,  as  in  defraying  the  expenses  of  keeping 
up  its  public  worship.  The  neglect  of  either  of  these,  in 
just  proportion  to  our  means,  is  a  violation  of  symbolic, 
and  if  voluntary  and  knowingly,  of  true  Communion.  In 
the  former  case,  it  violates  Christian,  in  the  latter,  Church 
fellowship. 


CHAPTER  lY. 

THE   SYMBOLS   OF   CHURCH   COMMUNION. 

1.  Kiss  of  charity — feasts  of  charity — right  hand  of  fellowship.  2.  The 
Lord's  Supper — in  what  sense  the  Communion.  3.  A  symbol  of 
Church  relations.  4.  Is  more  than  a  recognition  of  Christian  character. 
5.  Is  a  Chui'ch  ordinance.  6.  Not  a  mere  symbol  of  Communion  with 
the  Church  Univei-sal.  7.  Nor  with  all  saints  on  earth.  8.  But  with 
those  with  whom  we  celebrate.  9.  Illustrated  by  the  Passover,  and 
institution  of  the  Supper.  10.  Independence  of  Churches.  IL  The 
early  Christians  esteemed  the  Lord's  Supper  a  Church  ordinance. 
12.  It  is  not  to  be  used  where  there  are  not  Church  relations.  13.  The 
Church  an  executive,  not  a  legislative  body.  14.  Baptist  Churches 
cannot  be  charged  with  want  of  charity.  15.  The  Lord's  Supper 
belongs  to  all  the  members  of  a  Church  which  celebrates  it.  16.  In- 
justice of  debarring  infants  in  Pedobaptist  Churches. 

1.  It  was  remarked  in  the  last  eliapter  that  whatever 
action  is  designed  to  indicate  our  Christian  Fellowship  with 
any,  is  a  symbol  of  that  fellowship.  So  now,  it  may  be 
added,  that  whatever  action,  over  and  above  this,  is  de- 
signed to  indicate  Church  fellowship  with  any  person,  is 
a  symbol  of  that  Communion.  There  were  in  primitive 
times,  many  symbols  of  Church  Communion,  such  as  ^^  the 
kiss  of  Charity,''  1  Pet.  5:  14,  the  "  feasts  of  Charity," 
alluded  to  in  Jude  12,  and  ^^  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,'' 
see  Gal.  2:9.  But  we  enter  at  once  upon  the  considera- 
tion of  the  most  important  and  Divine  of  them  all,  the 
Lord's  Supper  as  the  symbol,  not  now  of  our  Communion 
with  Christ,  but  with  those  with  whom  we  celebrate. 

2.  There  is  indeed  a  popular  mode  of  expression,  by 


84  COMMUNION. 

wliicli  the  Lord's  Supper  is  termed  "the  Communion/' 
In  Scripture,  it  is  nowhere  thus  designated,  except  it  be 
as  "  the  Communion  of  the  Jjody  and  hlood  of  Christ." 
The  popular  use  might  seem  to  indicate  that  it  is,  at  least, 
the  divinely  appointed  and  chief  if  not  the  only  symbol  of 
the  Communion  which  ^e  believer  enjoys  with  all  Chris- 
tians as  such.  Even  Eobert  Hall  uses  it  thus ;  whereas, 
it  is  chiefly  the  symbol  of  our  Communion  with  Christ, 
and  then  with  those  with  whom  we  celebrate  it;  of  a 
Communion,  not  as  Christians  merely,  but  as  sustaining  a 
peculiar,  that  is  a  Church  relation. 

3.  AYe  consider  the  Lord's  Supper,  then,  a  symbol  of 
Church  relations.  When  we  say  this,  we  mean  that  there 
is  a  fellowship  in  Church  relations,  professed  with  those 
Christians,  with  whom  v\^e  visibly  celebrate.  We  do  not 
say  that  this  is  everything  indicated,  for  then  its  chief 
significance  would  be  lost,  in  not  symbolizing  our  Commu- 
nion with  the  blessed  Saviour  himself.  But  we  do  mean 
that  Church  fellowship  and  relations  are  uniformly  ex- 
pressed by  it  with  all  our  fellow-communicants.  It  implies 
for  example  the  exercise  of  that  peculiar  watchful  and 
disciplinary  love,  which  it  is  the  special  province  of  visible 
Church  members,  mutually  to  exercise  among  each  other, 
as  it  is  the  province  of  none  beside,  by  which  the  Lord's 
Table  is  preserved  from  the  approach  of  notoriously  im- 
proper persons.  Hence  "  with  such  a  one,  no  not  to  eat,'' 
L  e.  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  was 
not  to  be  regarded  as  a  member  of  the  Church. 

4.  If  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  Church  ordinance,  then  it 
symbolizes,  each  time  it  is  celebrated,  a  very  different  and 
much  more  specific  relationship  subsisting  between  the 
parties  thus  celebrating  together,  than  a  communion 
simply  as  Christians.     It  is  much  more  than  a  recognition 


THE  lord's  supper  A  CHURCH  ORDINANCE.       85 

of  their  Christian  character ;  it  indicates  a  visible  Church 
fellowship  as  existing  between  them.  Nor  will  it  be  a 
just  or  safe  inference  from  parties  not  communing  together, 
where  there  is  opportunity,  that  they  do  not  recognize  each 
other  as  fellow-Christians,  but  at  most  that  they  cannot 
unite  as  members  of  the  same  visible  Church. 

6.  We  desire  to  show  that  this  is  the  true  view  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  "  When  ye  come  together  therefore  into 
one  place,"  says  the  Apostle,  ^'  this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's 
Supper.  For  in  eating,  every  one  taketh  before  other, 
&c.  .  .  .  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when  ye  come  together 
to  eat,  tarry  one  for  another."  (1  Cor.  11:  21,  33.)  The 
Apostle  here  clearly  alludes  to  it  as  the  universally  current 
opinion,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  Church  ordinance, 
so  far  as  this,  that  it  was  completely  celebrated  in  one 
place,  by  one  Church.  Nor  does  he  oppose,  but  rather 
takes  this  view  for  granted  as  correct,  only  objecting  to 
the  peculiar  abuses  of  which  the  Corinthians  were  guilty, 
as  vitiating  the  ordinance.  When  he  bids  them  '^  tarry 
one  for  another,"  he  clearly  intimates  that  the  regulation 
of  the  Supper,  so  far  as  time  and  place  are  concerned,  is 
lodged  in  each  particular  Church ;  that  it  expresses  the 
relations  of  the  members  of  that  Church,  to  each  other  as 
such ;  and  that  as  an  executive  body,  each  Church,  as  such, 
is  to  decide  what  course  is  suitable  for  it  to  pursue  in  the 
observance  of  this  ordinance,  as  most  conformed  to  the 
laws  and  spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  responsible  to  the 
Great  Head  of  the  Church,  and  to  Him  alone  for  the  cor- 
rectness of  their  interpretation.  The  Lord's  Supper  is 
thus  committed  to  the  guardianship  of  the  visible  Churches. 

6.  That  this  ordinance  is  not,  as  it  was  considered  in 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  and  has  been  often  since,  a 
symbolof  that  Communion  which  belongs  to  the  universal 


86  COMMUNION. 

Church,  as  such,  is  plain,  for  then  it  would  be  the  symbol 
of  our  Communion  with  all  Saints,  asleep  as  well  as  alive, 
in  heaven  as  well  as  on  earth.  If  this  were  the  case,  it 
would  be  proper  to  have  seasons  for  holding  communion 
with  the  dead,  by  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  masses /or  and 
with  the  dead  are  not  so  very  distinct,  as  to  make  our  non- 
adhesion  to  some  of  the  worst  corruptions  of  Popery,  plain 
or  reasonable.  Puseyism,  at  least,  would  naturally  spring 
from  the  error. 

7.  Nor  is  the  Lord's  Supper  appointed  as  the  symbol  of 
our  Communion  merely  with  all  the  saints  on  earth,  or 
with  this  or  that  denomination,  but  each  time  it  is  cele- 
brated, it  is  the  token  of  a  fellowship  more  specific  in  its 
nature,  a  Communion  in  Church  relations.  The  first 
Churches  were  always  willing  to  enter  into  these  relations 
with  any  whom  they  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Table.  The 
two  always  corresponded  exactly  to  each  other.  The  first 
was  the  thing  signified ;  the  latter,  the  sign. 

8.  We  have  seen,  in  a  former  chapter,  the  distinction 
between  Christian  and  Church  fellowship.  That  the  latter, 
though  having  its  origin  in  the  same  more  general  affection, 
which  binds  all  Christians  together  as  such,  is  far  more 
specific,  and  hence  as  distinct  in  some  of  its  manifestations, 
as  family  afi"ection,  and  ordinary  fellow-citizenship  or 
friendship.  That  the  origin  of  this  distinction  is  not  of 
man,  but  of  Divine  Revelation,  we  have  also  seen.  In  the 
Lord's  Supper  we  symbolize  our  Church  fellowship,  with 
the  Christians  with  whom  we  participate. 

9.  To  illustrate  more  clearly  this  distinction.  "When 
the  Jews  celebrated  their  Passover,  it  was  ordained  as  a 
general  rule,  that  each  family  should  partake  apart  in  its 
own  house.  If  any  other  person  or  persons  partook  with 
them,  they  did  so  by  special  arrangement  and  invitation. 


ILLUSTRATION    AND    PROOF.  87 

Thus  was  the  Passover  a  family  ordinance.  All  concern- 
ing it,  that  was  not  regulated  by  a  special  divine  command, 
was  left  to  the  arrangement  of  each  family.  The  non- 
extension  of  an  invitation  by  another  family  to  participate 
with  them,  was  not  in  any  way  equivalent  to  a  denial  of 
the  true  Israelitish  character  of  the  parties  not  invited.  It 
was  never  intended  that  because  they  were  Jews,  they 
should  be  entitled  to  eat  the  Passover  in  any  family  they 
pleased  besides  their  own.  So  when  our  blessed  Saviour 
instituted  the  Supper,  as  he  did  upon  one  of  these  Paschal 
occasions,  it  was  we  say  as  a  Church  ordinance,  that  he 
ordained  it.  He  did  not  call  together  all  his  followers. 
Where  for  instance  were  the  seventy,  whom  he  had  sent 
out  two  and  two  ?  He  simply  gathered  together  the 
twelve,  with  whom  he  was  wont  more  intimately  to  com- 
mune 'y  his  own  special  disciples,  (or  particular  Church,) 
and  to  them  he  brake  that  bread  and  poured  out  that  wine 
that  instituted  this  feast.  But  no  person  has  ever  sup- 
posed, that  in  choosing,  as  our  Saviour  evidently  did,  to 
institute  the  Supper  with  the  twelve,  but  without  the 
seventy,  and  without  those  pious  women  (including  even 
his  own  Mother)  who  were  in  or  near  Jerusalem,  it  was  at 
all  indicated  that  the  rest  were  not  partakers  of  a  true  and 
real  fellowship  with  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  or  that 
he  expressed  any  exclusion  of  them  from  his  fellowship, 
as  true  members  of  his  spiritual  body. 

We  say  therefore  that  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  were  never  designed  to  mark  the  limits  of  our 
true  spiritual  fellowship,  so  that  those  not  partaking  at 
the  same  Communion  Table  should  therefore  be  supposed 
not  to  have  true  Christian  Communion  or  fellowship  with 
each  other. 

10.  In  the  Congregational,  as  well  as  in  the  Baptist 


88  COMMUNION. 

denomination,  each  particular  Church  is  regarded  as  a 
perfectly  distinct  society.  This  was  the  prihiitive  plan. 
Our  Churches  advise  with  each  other  by  Councils,  Asso- 
ciations, and  Conventions,  they  fraternize  in  all  ways  that 
may  be  mutually  agreeable,  but  each  Church  is  an  inde- 
pendent body.  Because  a  Christian  is  a  member  of  one 
church,  he  is  not  therefore  a  member  of  all,  nor  yet  of  any 
other.  This  can  only  be  effected  regularly  by  a  formal 
vote  of  the  Churches  concerned,  and  transfer  of  member- 
ship. Nor  does  the  mere  fact  that  he  is  a  member  of  one 
of  them,  entitle  him  to  the  privileges  of  any  other,  as  for 
instance,  to  partake  with  them  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
When  he  does,  it  is  by  Christian  courtesy,  and  invitation 
to  occasional  communion.  The  propriety  of  this  will  be 
discussed  in  the  succeeding  chapter.  Among  Baptists, 
no  person,  because  he  is  a  member  of  one  Church,  is  there- 
fore entitled  as  a  matter  of  right,  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  any  other,  even  of  the  same  denomination; 
any  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  being  a  Jew,  authorized  a 
man  to  enter  the  house  of  any  other  Jew,  without  invita- 
tion, and  there  celebrate  the  Passover.  Each  particular 
Church  of  Christ  is  a  separate  family  in  the  great  Israel 
or  nation  of  Christ's  professed  followers ;  and  we  apprehend 
that  the  blessed  Saviour  instituted  the  Supper  when  and 
where  he  did,  that  he  included  those  whom  he  did,  and 
no  others,  to  show  that  such  was  the  idea  by  which  the 
administration  of  this  ordinance  was  to  be  regulated.* 
11.  There  is  sufficient  proof  to  convince  any  close  stu- 

*  Neander,  in  his  "Planting  and  Training  of  the  Cliristian  Church,'» 
Book  3,  ch.  5,  p.  103,  says,  "As  to  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Supper, 
it  continued  to  be  connected  with  the  common  meal,  in  which  all,  as 
mcvihers  of  one  fainihj,  joined,  as  in  the  primitive  Jewish  Church,  and 
agreeably  to  its  first  institution." 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    EARLY    CHRISTIANS.        89 

dent  of  Church  History  of  the  first  three  centuries^  that 
in  the  very  earliest  ages,  the  Lord's  Supper  was  regarded 
as  strictly  a  Church  ordinance,  as  we  have  defined   this 
phrase.     For  even  in  after  times,  when  they  had  departed 
from  the  primitive  pattern, — when  the  Churches  of  most 
cities  had  embraced  each  of  them  several  congregations, 
there  was  ever  one  and  but  one  altar,  at  which  were  con- 
secrated the  bread  and  wine  for  all  the  assemblies  under 
the  charge  of  one  Bishop.     Sometimes  a  Church  consisted 
of  so  few,  that  two  deacons  and  himself  were  sufficient  to 
supply  its  wants,  and  sometimes  it  embraced  more  than 
forty  congregations.     Still,  however  numerous  the  assem- 
blies included  in  a  single  bishoj)ric,  each  Bishop's  charge 
was  regarded  as  one  and  but  one  Church,  separate  and 
complete,  and  each  Church  was  indicated  by  one,  and  but 
one  altar,  or  communion  table.     Here  the  elements  were 
blessed,  and   sent  from  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  to  the 
several  congregations.     The  discipline  of  this  body  was 
usually  and  properly  final  within  itself,  and  its  own  mem- 
bers.    It  baptized  and  excommunicated  at  pleasure.     For 
any  of  these  branch  congregations  to  set  up  an  altar,  was 
to  set  up  a  claim  to  Church  independence."^     The  two 
were  regarded  as  synonymous.     Hence  was  it  that  even 
in  after  ages,  the  High  Altar  of  the  Cathedral  or  Bishop's 
Church  became  so  important.     Thus  firmly  did  the  super- 
stition of  succeeding  ages,  amid  many  corrupting  and  more 
modern  elements,  embalm  the  form  of  the  true  and  primi- 
tive doctrine,  long  after  its  vitality  had  fled.     ^'  One  altar 
where  there  is  one  Bishop,'^   is  the  known  aphorism  of 
Ignatius.     (Epis.   ad  Phila.)     In    the  time   of   Cyprian, 
Bishop  and  altar  were  correlative  terms,  so  that  both  Op- 

*  Thus  Novatian  is  on  this  account  charged  with  "  ei-ecting  a  ^>?-o- 
fane  altar."     Cyp.  Epis.  672. 

8* 


90  COMMUNION. 

tatus  and  Augustine  speak  of  the  wliole  diocese,  over 
■which  Cyprian  presided,  as  having  but  one  altar,  and  show 
that  the  Donatists  had  gone  out  from  his  church,  because 
they  had  set  up  another  altar.  Thus  at  Rome  as  late  as 
the  time  of  Innocent  the  First,  (A.  D.  402 — 417,)  Vale- 
rius speaks  of  his  sending  the  bread  of  the  consecrated 
eucharist,  to  the  Presbyters  ministering  in  the  parish 
churches  on  the  Lord's  day.*  Sufficient  this  to  show 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  anciently  regarded  as  a  Church 
ordinance. 

12.  It  may  here  perhaps  be  asked,  whether  if  a  body 
of  Christians  should  so  desire  it,  and  should  agree  to  cele- 
brate the  Lord's  Supper  together,  not  in  any  token  of 
Church  relations,  but  simply  as  a  mutual  recognition  of 
Christian  character,  and  of  their  fellowship  as  such,  it 
would  be  proper  for  them  to  do  so  ?  A  few  years  ago,  the 
case  was  practically  presented  in  this  way.  The  Old  and 
the  New  School  Presbyterian  General  Assemblies,  meeting 
at  the  same  time  in  the  same  city,  and  having  formally 
dissolved  their  ecclesiastical  relations  with  each  other, 
although  neither  was  prepared  to  deny  the  general  Chris- 
tian character  of  the  other  body,  it  was  proposed  by  one 
of  them,  that  they  should  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper 
together.   This  was  declined.  Was  there  sufficient  reason  ? 

That  bodies  of  Christians,  where  they  cannot  meet  as 
members  of  the  same  Church,  should  desire  to  recognize 
each  other's  Christianity  by  outward  tokens,  is  natural  and 
proper.  It  might  seem  desirable  to  a  number  of  suitable 
persons  to  form  a  Christian  Temperance  Society,  the  basis 
of  which  should  be  a  recognition  and  fellowship  with  each 
other,  not  only  as  friends  of  Temperance,  but  also  as  pro- 

*  See  Bingham's  Christian  Antiquities,  Bk.  8,  chap.  6,  sect.  16, 17. 


THE    CHUECH    NOT    A    LEGISLATIVE   BODY.         91 

fessed  Christians.  Such  a  society  might  be  formed  of 
various  churches  and  denominations.  In  such  a  case 
whatever  symbol  distinguished  them  from  members  of 
other  Temperance  Societies  would  be  a  recognition  of  their 
fellowship  as  Christians.  The  question  might  arise,  whe- 
ther they  should  for  this  purpose  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Supper  together.  As  a  matter  of  expediency,  we  think 
few  would  hesitate  in  saying  that  almost  any  other  plan 
would  be  better  than  this.  Otherwise  why  do  not  our 
Missionary  Societies  (whose  members  are  all  of  the  same 
denomination)  adopt  this  at  their  Anniversaries,  but  that 
it  would  seem  to  change  a  mere  Society  into  a  Church. 

13.  But  the  question  might  be  discussed  as  one  of  right 
rather  than  of  expediency,  and  then  it  must  turn  upon 
this  point ;  whether  the  churches  of  Christ  or  Christians 
have  a  lefjislativey  or  only  an  executive  authority  in  regard 
to  the  ordinances  of  Christianity.  If  the  former,  then 
they  have  unquestionably,  not  only  a  right  to  make  what 
regulations  they  please,  in  regard  to  it,  as  to  time  and 
place,  but  to  vote  whether  they  will  celebrate  it  to  denote 
a  Church  fellowship,  or  Christian  fellowship ;  in  fact,  whe- 
ther they  will  celebrate  it  at  all,  or  whether  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  shall  be  laid  aside  or  radically  altered 
as  to  their  object  or  form.  The  Boman  Catholics  have  so 
far  assumed  this  power  as  to  administer  the  bread  only, 
and  not  the  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Protestants  have 
uniformly  denounced  this  as  a  stretch  of  usurpation ;  but 
their  complaints  cannot  be  considered  just,  if  the  Churches 
of  Christ  have  a  legislative  authority  as  to  this  ordinance. 
In  that  case  they  might,  if  more  convenient,  agree  in 
Ireland  to  celebrate  it  with  potatoes  and  milk,  instead  of 
bread  and  wine,  and  so  do  away  with  both. 

No  considerate  person  will  hesitate  in  taking  the  oppo- 


92  COMMUNION. 

site  view,  ^.  e.  that  the  Church  is  an  Executive  and  not  a 
Legislative  body.  The  laws  of  Christ  are  supreme  and 
final.  A  Church  of  Christ  cannot  repeal  or  supersede 
theni;  Ibut  only  execute.  It  cannot  alter,  it  can  only  carry 
out.  It  is  not  required  even  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  other 
churches  to  decide  what  is  the  application  of  the  law  of 
Christ  to  them.  It  can  only  decide  what  is  proper  for 
itself  to  do,  or  the  application  of  the  law  to  its  own  cir- 
cumstances. Each  Church  is  an  executive  body  of  the 
New  Testament  for  itself.  It  has  sufficient  powers  con- 
ferred to  execute  the  Will  of  Christ,  none  to  alter. 

14.  The  effects  of  a  right  understanding  of  this  prin- 
ciple will  be,  entirely  to  relieve  the  Baptists  from  all 
possibility  of  being  charged  with  bigotry,  on  account  of 
their  views  and  practice  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
It  is  frequently  urged  that  we  refuse  Christian  Communion 
with  the  members  of  different  denominations,  and  thus 
commit  the  most  flagrant  of  offences  against  the  law  of 
Charity.  This  is  an  error.  We  do  not  refuse  to  commune 
with  the  members  of  other  denominations  as  Christians. 
On  the  contrary,  we  seek  communion  with  them  all,  in 
proportion  to  their  piety.  But  we  do  not  consider  them, 
nor  symbolize  our  communion  with  them,  as  belonging  to 
the  same  particular  Church  as  ourselves  ]  and  as  we  have 
shown,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  Church  ordinance.  Where- 
ever  we  find  Christians,  we  commune  with  them  as  such. 
But  the  Lord's  Supper  being  a  Church  ordinance,  none 
but  the  members  of  a  particular  Church,  or  Christian  con- 
gregation can  claim  to  partake  of  it.  Even  members  of 
another  Church  of  the  same  denomination  only  do  so  by 
special  invitation,  and  not  by  right,  as  we  shall  show  in 
the  next  chapter. 

There  is  nothing  in  our  views  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to 


ALL    BUT   BAPTISTS    INCONSISTENT.  93 

prevent  our  haying  the  most  perfect  charity  and  fellowship 
as  Christians,  with  those  who  differ  from  us  in  many 
respects.  We  can  and  do  commune  with  them  as  such. 
As  indeed  we  never  baptize  any  person,  until  we  believe 
him  to  be  a  Christian  already,  his  baptism  never  can 
int7^oduce  him  to  our  Christian  fellowship.  We  never  do 
regard,  and  never  have  regarded  the  outward  act  of  bap- 
tism as  an  essential  to  Christian  character,  and  it  is  im- 
possible we  ever  should.  It  is  then  impossible  with  us, 
(as  with  no  other  denomination,)  that  our  Christian  com- 
munion should  be  limited  to  our  own  church  ;  nor  do  we 
any  more  refuse  Christian  communion  with  other  denomi- 
nations, than  did  the  Saviour  with  the  seventy,  or  with  his 
mother  Mary,  the  blessed  and  highly  favored  among 
women.  On  the  points  of  baptism  and  church  arrange- 
ments, we  acknowledge  a  difference,  just  as,  and  where,  do 
Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  all  other  denominations; 
and  we  say  as  Abraham  said  to  Lot,  "  Let  there  be  no 
strife,  I  pray  thee,  between  thee  and  me,  for  we  are  bre- 
thren :  is  not  the  whole  land  before  thee  ?  If  thou  wilt 
take  the  right  hand,  then  we  will  go  to  the  left,  and  if 
thou  depart  to  the  left,  then  we  will  go  to  the  right." 

15.  It  only  remains  to  be  added  here,  that  if  this  view 
is  correct,  and  the  Lord's  Supper  is  designed  to  mark  the 
peculiar  fellowship  subsisting  between  the  members  of  a 
particular  church,  then  it  is  an  ordinance  belonging  of 
right  to  all  the  members  of  a  particular  church,  as  such. 

16.  It  is  at  this  point,  that  all  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians, except  the  Baptists,  exhibit  such  a  singular  and 
inconsistent  restriction  of  their  communion.  Kegard- 
ing,  as  they  all  do,  Baptism  as  the  door  of  their  several 
churches,  they  on  the  one  hand  baptize  children  into 
church  membership,  and  on  the  other,  refuse  them  the 


94  COMMUNION. 

Lord's  Supper,  thereby  excluding  half  or  three-quarters  of 
their  own  members  from  the  symbols  of  Church  fellow- 
ship. What  makes  this  inconsistency  more  remarkable 
is  its  contrariety  to  all  those  ancient  Church  customs,  to 
which  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  appeal  as  their  chief  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  It  is  notorious  that 
the  proofs  in  Church  History  of  Infant  participation  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  are  as  clear,  as  early,  and  as  universal 
as  those  of  Infant  Baptism,  so  that  they  must  stand  or 
fall  together.  That  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  are  sub- 
stantially right  in  not  considering  infants  proper  persons 
to  participate  in  the  Eucharist,  we  do  not  deny.  It  is 
one  of  those  happy  inconsistencies  that  result  from  their 
being  so  far  "  Baptists  in  theory,'^  as  Dr.  Bushnell  de- 
clares that  they  are.  But  a  most  strange  and  serious 
inconsistency  there  certainly  is,  in  first  declaring  them 
members  by  baptism,  and  then  refusing  them  the  tokens 
of  membership.  Baptists  have  no  such  close  communion 
as  this. 


CHAPTER  y. 

OCCASIONAL   COMMUNION. 

1.  Meaning  of  the  phrase.  2.  Two  classes.  3.  Occasional  participation 
with  members  of  other  Churches  of  the  same  denomination.  4.  With 
Christians  of  no  visible  Chm-ch,  and  of  other  denominations.  5.  The 
Difference  is  only  as  to  occasional  participation.  6.  Shown  from 
Methodist  Book  of  Discipline.  7.  From  the  Pres.  Con.  of  Faith. 
8.  From  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. — Not  acted  np  to.  9.  Any  other  plan 
of  Church  membership  must  destroy  all  denominations.  10.  This  ad- 
mitted by  Robert  Hall.     11.  Must  silence  Truth,  if  in  the  minority. 

12.  Baptist  Churches    originated    in    the    desire    of   Pedobaptists. 

13.  Occasional  Communion  must  be   regulated  by  general   princi- 
ples.    14.  Methodist  and  Presbyterian  principles  applied  to  the  case. 

1.  ^^  Occasional  communion"  is  a  technical  phrase  for 
a  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  those  Christians 
who  are  not  members  of  our  own  particular  church ;  but 
who  may  occasionally  worship  with  us,  and  so  partake  by 
special  invitation,  or  with  whom  we  may  thus  worship, 
and  so  be  invited  to  partake.  As  the  same  principles  will 
apply  to  both  cases,  they  will  be  treated  as  one. 

2.  These  Christian  brethren  may  be  divided  into  two 
classes,  namely,  members  of  other  churches,  whose  senti- 
ments are  in  accordance  with  our  own,  and  who  are  there- 
fore only  prevented  by  local  causes  from  becoming  mem- 
bers of  the  church  with  which  they  propose  to  partake ; 
and  secondly,  those  between  whom  and  ourselves  there  are 
such  differences  of  sentiment,  as  would  make  it  inconsistent 
with  the  constitutions  of  our  respective  churches  for  us  to 


96  COMMUNION. 

receive  them,  or  them  to  receive  us,  as  permanent  members, 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  that  relation. 

This  will  involve  the  consideration  of  Occasional  Partici- 
pation in  the  Lord's  Supper,  with 

(1.)  Those  of  our  own  denomination  not  members  of  the 
same  Church. 

(2.)  Christians  J  either  belonging  to  churches  of  other 
denominations,  or  to  no  visible  church. 

3.  (1.)  As  to  the  first  of  these  cases,  i.  e.  occasional 
participation  with  members  of  other  churches  of  the  sa7ne 
denomination.  These  occasional  or  exceptional  instances, 
must  of  course  be  regulated  by  those  principles  which 
belong  to  the  general  administration  of  the  ordinance,  that 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Church  principles.  It  is  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Baptists  to  invite  members  of  other  churches 
of  the  same  denomination  to  participate  with  them  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  This  might  at  first  view  be  thought  a 
deviation  from  the  principle  we  have  laid  down,  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  designed  to  express  the  communion  sub- 
sisting between  the  members  of  a  particular  church,  as  a 
church.  As  however  the  individuals  so  invited,  are  such 
persons  as  we  should  be  willing  to  admit  to  our  permanent 
Church  fellowship,  if  they  were  permanently  located 
amongst  us,  and  may  therefore  be  considered  for  the  time 
being  as  members  of  the  Church  with  which  they  unite  in 
worship,  they  may  with  perfect  propriety  be  invited  to 
partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  There  is  every  consistency 
in  this,  with  those  Church  principles  that  should,  as  we 
have  seen,  guide  the  administration  of  the  ordinance. 
Indeed  it  has  been  practised  in  all  ages  from  the  very 
first.     Acts  20:  6,  7. 

4.  (2.)  As  to  occasional  participation  loith  the  second 
class  of  persons  mentioned,.  *'.  e.  Christians,  either  belonylnj 


A    SERIOUS    CHARGE    CONSIDERED.  97 

to  no  particular  church,  or  to  other  denominations,  the  same 
principlej  i.  e.  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  symbol  of 
Church,  as  distinct  from  Christian  fellowship,  at  once  and 
finally  decides  against  it. 

So  far  as  this  decision  affects  those  persons,  (a  very 
large  and  increasing  class  in  the  present  age)  whose  title 
to  be  considered  Christians  we  cannot  deny,  but  who  yet 
are  members  of  no  regular  Church,  our  Pedobaptist  bre- 
thren generally  will  fully  concur  with  us.  Members  of 
the  Society  of  Friends,  who  from  not  administering  bap- 
tism have  commonly  been  regarded  as  belonging  to  this 
class,  have  not  generally  been  thought  proper  persons  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Table.  Bishop  White  of  Penn. 
it  is  said,  refused  the  elements  to  a  pious  Quaker  who 
desired  to  partake.  Indeed,  as  we  shall  shortly  see,  all 
Pedobaptist  writers  restrain  from  the  Communion  unbap- 
tized  persons.  Instances  are  to  be  found  in  nearly  all 
evangelical  congregations,  of  persons  whose  lives  for 
twenty  or  thirty  years,  have  led  all  around  them  to  trust 
that  they  are  Christians,  but  who,  from  modesty,  or  mis- 
taken views  of  their  duty,  never  having  joined  any  Church, 
are  not  invited  to  the  Table  of  the  Lord. 

It  has  however,  strange  to  say,  often  been  brought  as  a 
most  serious  charge  against  our  usages  and  denomination, 
that  we  do  not  participate  in  the  occasional  celebration  of - 
the  Lord's  Supper  with  Churches  of  other  denominations 
whose  members  we  do  not  consider  baptized,  nor  invite 
their  members  to  partake  with  us.  As  this  is  urged  with 
great  earnestness  as  an  objection  against  the  Baptists ;  as 
with  many,  it  is  avowedly  the  only  objection;  and  as 
young  Christians  are  sometimes  perplexed  by  what  they 
hear  said  on  the  subject,  we  shall  consider  it  the  more 
carefully. 

9 


98  COMMUNION. 

5.  (1.)  In  the  first  place,  it  will  he  observed  that  this 
objection  is  only  urged  hy  other  denominations  in  regard  to 
the  OCCASIONAL  participation  in  this  ordinance.  As  regards 
permanent  Church  fellowship,  they  are  perfectly  agreed 
with  us.  They  do  not  doubt  that  Christians  ought  usually 
to  partake  with  the  Churches  to  which  they  respectively 
belong;  and  in  the  formation  of  their  Churches,  they  are 
professedly  at  least  as  distinctive  as  we.  Such  are  their 
terms  of  membership,  that  a  conscientious  person,  holding 
Baptist  sentiments,  could  not  join  one  of  their  Churches. 
If  he  did,  so  are  their  Creeds,  Confessions  of  Faith,  and 
Church  Covenants  framed,  and  that  purposely,  that  he 
would  be  obliged  to  support  Infant  Baptism.  If  he  had 
children,  he  would  be  pledged  to  bring  them  forward  for 
Baptism.  This,  a  conscientious  Baptist  could  not  do.  It 
is  nothing  to  say  that  many,  and  an  increasing  number, 
do  practically  neglect  it ; — neglect  it  because  they  have 
no  faith  in  it.  The  standards  of  these  Churches  are  pur- 
posely so  framed,  as  to  make  it  the  covenant  obligation  of 
every  member  to  conform  to  this.  A  person  of  Baptist 
sentiments  would  be  acting  treacherously  to  join  a  Church 
with  the  intention  of  subverting  its  order  and  customs,  by 
not  fulfilling  his  solemn  pledges. 

6.  That  these  statements  are  correct,  is  easily  shown. 
Our  Methodist  brethren,  for  instance,  in  their  17th  Article 
of  Faith,  declare  that  '^  the  baptism  of  young  children  is  to 
he  retained  in  the  Church,^'  and  in  Chap.  1,  sect.  16,  of 
the  Discipline,  it  is  made,  "  the  duty  of  every  minister  of 
a  circuit  or  station,  to  obtain  the  names  of  the  children 

belonging  to  his  congregation, and  diligently  to 

instruct  and  exhort  all  parents  to  dedicate  their  children  to 
the  Lord  in  Baptism,  as  early  as  convenient."  In  answer 
to  the  question,  ''How  improper  persons  shall  be  kept 


PEDOBAPTIST  CREEDS  AND  CATECHISMS.     99 

from  joining  the  Clnircli?''  the  answer  is,  ^^  Let  none  be 
received  into  the  Church,  until  they  are  recommended  by 
a  leader,  with  whom  they  have  met  at  least  six  months  on 
trial,  and  have  been  baptized,  and  shall  on  examination 
by  the  leader  in  charge,  before  the  Church,  give  satisfac- 
tory assurances,  both  of  the  correctness  of  their  faith,  and 
their  willingness  to  observe  and  keep  the  rules  of  the  Church.^' 
Discipline,  chap.  2,  sect.  2. 

The  whole  of  this  answer  is  put  in  italics  in  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  to  indicate  its  radical  importance.  Hence 
it  will  be  observed  that  all  persons  joining  the  Methodist 
denomination  must  not  only  be  baptized  according  to  their 
views,  but  after  six  months  in  which  to  learn  what  the 
rules  of  the  Church  are,  and  among  them  this,  as  to 
^^  the  baptism  of  children'^  being  '^  retained,^'  they  must 
publicly  give  assurances  of  their  willingness  to  *^  observe 
and  keep"  all,  and  of  course  this  rule  of  the  Church.  Thus 
then  it  is  evident  that  according  to  the  Book  of  Discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Church,  persons  conscientiously  objecting 
to  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  not  believing  in,  or  not  promis- 
ing to  comply  with  this  rule  of  that  denomination,  are 
declared  ^^  improper  persons'^  to  join  their  class,  or  eccle- 
siastical society. 

Among  Presbyterians,  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  the 
authorized  exposition  of  the  belief  of  their  Teachers.  The 
larger  Catechism  seems  to  be  a  standard  rather  of  that  be- 
lief and  practice  expected  of  all  their  members.  (See  Form 
of  Government,  Book  1,  ch.  1,  §  5.)  The  shorter  Cate- 
chism, of  those  more  important  and  essential  points  of  the 
belief  and  practice  of  that  denomination  to  be  impressed 
as  such  on  the  minds  of  the  very  children.  In  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  (Chap.  28,  sect.  4,)  it  is  said,  "  not  only 
those  that  do  actually  profess  faith  in  and  obedience  to 


100  COMMUNION. 

Christ,  but  also  the  infants  of  one  or  both  believing 
parents  are  to  he  haptized."  So  also  the  larger  Catechism, 
(Q.  and  A.  166,)  declares  that  such  ^^  are  to  he  hajJtized;" 
and  so  even  the  smaller  Catechism  reiterates  these  same 
words,  '^  the  infants  of  such  as  are  members  of  the  visible 
Church,  are  to  be  baptized."  In  the  Form  of  Government, 
(Book  2,  of  Discipline,  chap.  1,)  it  is  stated  that  all  their 
baptized  are  members  of  the  Church,  and  that  these,  "  are 
bound  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  Church  members/' 
Thus  it  is  made  by  their  standards,  incumbent  on  all 
members  of  their  Church,  even  in  the  loosest  sense  of  the 
term,  to  bring  their  children  forward  for  baptism,  and  to 
instruct  them  that  Infant  Baptism  is  of  Divine  authority. 
This  a  conscientious  Baptist  can  never  do.  Our  Presby- 
terian brethren  seem  conscious  that  in  some  of  their 
requirements,  they  may  err ;  but  they  feel  what  is  unques- 
tionably true,  that  it  is  better  for  those  who  sincerely  hold 
the  same  sentiments,  to  unite  in  the  same  Church,  rather 
than  what  they  consider  truth,  should  not  be  distinctly 
avowed  and  advocated  for  fear  of  offending  some  member, 
or  that  the  conscience  of  a  Christian  should  be  wounded 
by  upholding  what  he  believes  to  be  error.  Hence,  in 
their  Form  of  Government,  (Book  1,  ch.  1,  §  2,)  they  state 
that  "  every  Christian  Church,  or  union  or  association  of 
particular  churches,  is  entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of 
admission  into  its  communion,  and  the  qualifications  of  its 
ministers  and  members,  ....  that  in  the  exercise  of 
this  right,  they  may  notwithstanding  err,  in  making  their 
terms  too  lax  or  too  narrow ;  yet  even  in  this  case,  they  do 
not  infringe  upon  the  liberty  or  the  rights  of  others,  but 
only  make  an  improper  use  of  their  own." 

The   Congregational   Churches   of  New  England  hold 
substantially  the  same  views.     A  few  years  ago,  it  was 


OUR    ONLY   DIFFERENCE.  101 

solemnly  proposed  by  the  Congregationalists  of  Maine  to 
make  the  neglect  of  bringing  forward  infants  for  Baptism, 
a  subject  of  regular  Church  discipline. 

8.  The  Episcopalians  declare  distinctly  in  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  (Art.  27,)  that  ''  The  Baptism  of  young 
children,  is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the  Church,  as 
most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ.^' 

Practically,  indeed,  it  is  true  there  is  no  denomination 
of  professed  Christians  in  this  country,  except  perhaps 
the  Roman  Catholics,  in  which  this  is  now  uniformly 
made  a  subject  of  actual  discipline,  at  least  to  the  extent 
of  exclusion ;  because  the  number  in  all  Churches,  who  re- 
ject or  neglect  it  from  a  conscientious  belief  that  it  is  un- 
scriptural,  is  so  immense,  and  embraces  so  large  a  portion 
of  the  most  pious  of  each  denomination,  that  somewhat 
after  the  manner  in  which  Tertullian  illustrated  the  pro- 
portion of  Christians,  under  the  Roman  government,  in  his 
day,  might  it  now  be  said  of  these,  that  '^  if  they  should 
break  away  and  remove  ^^  to  some  other  Church,  the  mere 
loss  of  so  many,  would  "le^\e  a  frightful  solitude. ^^*  But 
it  is  still  true  as  ever,  that  all  persons  joining  any  one 
of  these  Pedobaptist  denominations,  are  most  solemnly 
pledged  to  bring  their  children  forward  for  infant  baptism, 
a  pledge  that  is  always  urgently  exacted  where  practicable. 
We  do  not  blame  those  who  conscientiously  believe  in 
Infant  Baptism,  for  making  it  a  duty  of  Church  member- 
ship; we  only  wish  to  show  that  we,  in  making  our  Bap- 
tism requisite  to  our  Church  membership,  do  no  more  than 
they,  in  making  theirs  ; — that  all  are  agreed  so  far ;  and 
that  at  most  our  only  difference  is  as  to  occasional  Com- 
munion and  not  as  to  the  principles  of  Church  membership. 


*  See  Tertullian's  Apology,  sect.  37. 

9* 


102  COMMUNION. 

9.  (2.)  We  remark  further,  that  not  only  practically  do 
all  Christian  denominations  in  this  country  agree  with  us 
as  to  the  principles  of  Church  membership,  but  that  any 
other  views  on  this  suhject  must  result  in  the  amalgamation 
of  all  denominations  into  one,  or  the  constant  changing  of 
each  Christian  Church  to  and  fro,  from  one  denomination 
to  another,  as  any  shifting  majority  might  chance  to  vote, 
at  any  Church  meeting. 

That  the  plan  of  Church  Membership  proposed  by  R. 
Hall,  would  result  in  the  mixing  up  of  all  creeds  and  de- 
nominations, both  he  and  his  followers  in  England  have 
freely  admitted.  He  indeed  predicted  that  "  the  mixture 
of  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  in  Christian  societies,  would 
probably  ere  long  be  such,  that  the  appellation  of  Baptist, 
might  be  found,  not  so  properly  applicable  to  Churches  as 
to  individuals,  while  some  more  comprehensive  term  might 
possibly  be  employed  to  discriminate  the  views  of  collective 
bodies.^'*  In  perfect  harmony  with  these  views,  the 
Church  which  Mr.  Hall  instructed,  have  refused  to  be  any 
longer  designated  by  the  name  of  Baptist. 

10.  It  will  be  proper,  here  briefly  to  consider  the  views 
of  the  celebrated  Robert  Hall  in  regard  to  the  organ- 
ization of  Christian  Churches.  His  principle  was,  that 
^'  the  universal  Church  differs  only  from  a  particular 
assembly  of  Christians,  as  the  whole  from  a  part,"  or  that 
''  each  particular  Church  is  to  the  Universal  Church,  as  a 
part  is  to  the  whole. '^  Hence  he  would  admit  all  whom 
he  considered  Christians,  Roman  Catholics,  or  Protestants, 
baptized  or  unbaptized,  not  only  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
occasional  communicants,  but  to  full  membership ;  and  this 
in  any  numbers  they  desired,  so  that  they  could  vote  and 

*  Christian  in  Opposition  to  Party  Communion.    Works,  vol.  2,  p.  228. 


CHURCH   VIEWS    OF    ROBERT    HALL.  103 

act  in  every  way,  for  or  against  any  views  they  esteemed 
proper,  and  thus  force  them  upon  the  Church,  and  give 
them  its  sanction  if  they  had  the  majority.  To  use  his 
own  words  his  '^  leading  position"  is,  that  ^'  no  Church  has 
a  right  to  establish  terms  of  Communion  which  are  not 
terms  of  salvation/^  (Works,  vol.  I.  p.  359.)  Indeed  he 
would  make  it  a  matter  of  indifference,  whether  the  Min- 
isters of  the  Gospel  were  themselves  baptized,  or  unbap- 
tized,  or  what  their  views  were  upon  any  subject  of 
Theology,  provided  they  were  esteemed  to  be  Christians. 
Some  of  them  have  been  Universalists  of  the  older  sort, 
and  they  might  perhaps  be  Arians,  or  Roman  Catholics. 
He  admits  that  this  would  effect  the  most  sweeping  reform, 
doing  away  all  denominational  distinctions.  When  his 
views  have  been  adopted,  it  has  frequently  occurred  that 
owing  to  the  much  larger  number  of  Pedobaptists  than 
Baptists  in  England,  a  majority  for  the  time  of  the  mem- 
bers of  Churches  originally  Baptist,  being  Pedobaptists, 
have  called  and  settled  Ministers  of  other  denominations. 
"  In  October,  1846,  the  leading  mixed  Baptist  ministers 
of  London  participated  in  the  formation  of  the  Church  at 
High  Wycombe.  The  Rev.  Joseph  Angus,  Secretary  of 
the  English  Baptist  Mission  Society,  was  designated  to 
deliver  the  address  on  the  occasion.  In  that  address,  he 
says  ''  In  a  Baptist  Church,  baptism  (as  we  understand 
the  term)  is  essential  to  membership.  In  a  Christian 
Church,  the  possession  of  true  faith  is  alone  essential.^' 
After  a  protracted  argument  to  illustrate  and  commend 
this  latter  term  of  membership,  he  adds,  "  I  rejoice  then 
that  this  Church  is  not  in  the  common  sense,  a  Baptist 
Church.^'  A  tutor  of  one  of  the  Baptist  Colleges,  (in 
which  candidates  for  the  ministry  are  educated)  and  editor 
of  one  of  the  Magazines  in  England,  after  presenting  in 


104  COMMUNION. 

his  paper  of  August,  1846,  an  earnest  plea  for  mixed  fel- 
lowship, imagines  that  it  would  be  objected  that  the 
principle  oi  free  communion  for  which  he  pleads  *^  would 
annihilate  all  denominational  Churches,'^  and  exultingly 
replies  '■'■  granted.  Mr.  Hall  showed  that  long  ago." 
Many  leading  men  openly  avow  their  sympathy  with  Mr. 
Hall's  willingness  for  the  extermination  of  Baptist 
Churches,  for  the  sake  of  Christian  Union.*  The  prin- 
ciple assumed  by  Mr.  Hall,  and  on  which  all  this  was 
based,  is  erroneous.  Particular  visible  Churches  cannot,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  and  were  never  meant  to  be  like  the 
Church  Universal  or  Invisible,  and  differing  from  it  only 
as  a  part  from  the  whole.  This  was  shown  in  a  former 
part  of  the  work,  (p.  37,  38,)  to  which,  in  order  to  save 
repetition  here,  the  reader  is  particularly  requested  to 
recur. 

We  therefore  confine  ourselves  here,  to  showing  in  a 
more  practical  manner  the  error  of  the  course  proposed  by 
Mr.  Hall;  and  this  merely  so  far  as  the  subject  of  Baptism 
is  concerned.  Let  us  suppose  the  connection  between  it 
and  visible  Church  membership  entirely  destroyed  in  all 
the  Presbyterian  Churches,  in  order  to  make  room  for 
Baptist  members  upon  the  terms  of  that  social  equality  as 
Church  members,  which  would  be  necessary.  Then  it 
would  become  the  duty  of  the  Pastors  of  those  Churches 
not  to  insist  or  urge  upon  their  members,  the  rite  of  Infant 
Baptism.  So  on  the  other  hand,  if  in  all  Baptist  Chui'ches, 
those  who  held  to  Infant  Baptism  were  received  as  full 
members  of  these  Churches,  the  duty  of  believers  to  be 
baptized  could  not  be  insisted  on.  Baptism  could  not  be 
preached  or  practised  publicly  as  the  act  of  the  Church, 

*  See  Appendix  H. 


EFFECTS    OF    ROBERT    HALL'S    TLAN.  105 

but  only  in  the  twilight,  and  as  tlie  act  of  the  individual. 
What  must  be  the  result  ?  Perfect  indifference  to  all  kinds 
of  Baptism,  and  perhaps  its  entire  neglect  or  rejection. 
Better  surely  is  it  that  things  continue  as  they  are.  Let 
those  who  hold  to  Believers'  Baptism  join  Churches  which 
practise  thus,  and  those  who  conscientiously  believe  in 
Infant  Baptism,  and  are  prepared  to  practise  it,  join 
Churches,  composed  of  those  whose  views  are  similar.  AVe 
may  safely  assert  that  no  Presbyterian,  or  Methodist,  or 
Congregational,  or  Episcopal  Church  would  be  willing  to 
agree  never  to  have  Infant  Baptism  publicly  preached  and 
administered,  or  the  peculiarities  of  their  denominational 
views  enjoined  on  their  members.  To  do  this,  would  be 
to  surrender  what  they  believe,  and  assert  to  be  truth. 
Why  then  should  we  be  expected  to  do  this  ? 

11.  Besides,  whatever  opinion  happened  to  have  the 
majority  in  the  beginning,  would,  by  this  unnatural 
silence,  be  certain  to  become  universal.  That  tendency 
which  Truth  has,  to  prevail,  when  spoken  and  acted  upon 
in  love,  would  be  prevented.  No  errors  could  ever  be 
corrected  by  such  a  course.  A  moral  torpor,  stagnation, 
and  inanity,  must  ensue.  That  system  which  restricts 
liberty,  can  never  be  eventually  favorable  to  truth,  or  even 
to  quiet,  unless  it  be  the  quietude  of  death.  It  should 
perhaps  be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  the  sincere  and  earnest 
desire  of  the  Baptists  for  peace  and  union,  that  such  a 
system  of  forming  Churches  should  have  been  attempted 
among  them,  and  them  alone.  It  has  arisen  from  a  most 
sincere  love  to  Christians,  as  such.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  we  hope  that  this  experiment  may  not  be  tried  in 
this  country.  No  denomination  but  our  own  has  attempted 
it  any  where.  Even  the  Unitarians  have  repudiated  it  in 
their  papers.     It  would  be  no  compliment  for  a  conscien- 


106  COMMUNION. 

tious  Pedobaptist  to  give  up  a  consistent  advocacy  of 
infant  baptism,  because  he  thought  that  the  preaching  of 
his  own  views,  in  his  own  Church,  in  a  Christian  spirit, 
would  offend  us;  while  as  members  of  a  Church,  it  would 
be  no  compliment  for  us  to  assist  to  propagate  what  we 
did  not  believe^  Pious  and  sensible  Pedobaptists  are  not 
offended  at  a  fair  and  candid  exposition  of  our  peculiari- 
ties, in  our  own  pulpits.  In  this  way  the  public  mind  is 
enlightened,  and  insensibly  the  truth  that  there  is  in  any 
set  of  opinions,  becomes  prevalent,  and  is  adopted  by  uni- 
versal consent,  the  error  being  dropped.  Many  of  the 
most  important  controversies  have  thus  been  settled.  It 
is  now,  for  instance,  generally  agreed  among  all  Evangeli- 
cal Churches,  that  an  experience  of  renewing  grace  is 
necessary  to  visible  Church  membership ;  but  a  hundred 
years  ago,  it  was  in  many  quarters  a  mooted  question, 
whether  even  the  ministry  should  necessarily  be  composed 
of  converted  men.  The  true  and  proper  way  is  for  Chris- 
tians to  form  themselves  into  Churches  with  those  with 
whom  they  agree  in  practice  and  opinion.  Let  this  only 
be  done  solemnly  and  prayerfully ,  then  let  such  a  Church 
conscientiously  carry  out  their  views,  "with  Christian  love 
towards  all  other  Churches.  If  they  are  true  they  will 
prevail,  if  erroneous  it  is  well  that  they  should  fall. 

12.  Here  it  deserves  to  be  especially  remarked,  that 
both  in  England  and  in  this  country,  some  of  the  first 
regular  Baptist  Churches  originated  in  the  express  desire 
of  Pedobaptists,  that  those  who  held  such  views  should 
not  remain  members  with  them.  In  London,  indeed,  the 
first  regular  Baptist  Church  originated  thus.  It  was 
found  that  an  Independent  Church  had  grown  too  large 
for  convenience,  and  at  the  same  time,  that  many  of  its 
members  were  Baptist  in  sentiment,  if  not  in  practice; 


PRINCIPLE  OF  OCCASIONAL  PARTICIPATION.      107 

whereupon  it  was  proposed  and  carried,  that  those  who 
were  of  such  views  should  be  baptized,  and  form  the  new 
body. 

In  this  country  however,  it  was  not  until  after  the 
forcible  ejectment  of  Roger  Williams  from  both  Church 
and  Colony,  on  account  of  his  principles,  that  the  first 
Baptist  Church  was  formed.  It  was  thus  an  absolute  ne- 
cessity, and  from  the  action  of  Pedobaptists,  that  the 
Baptist  Churches  of  this  country  and  of  England  origi- 
nated. The  desire  was  perhaps  not  unnatural  in  them,  if 
convinced  that  their  views  were  right.  On  the  principle 
therefore,  which  should  regulate  our  Church  Membership, 
we  are  all  perfectly  agreed.  It  affords  the  greatest  prac- 
ticable liberty  for  conscience,  and  scope  for  truth ;  and  has 
doubtless  resulted  under  God  thus  far,"  in  placing  the 
views  of  both  parties  more  clearly  and  thoroughly  before 
the  world,  than  they  could  otherwise  have  been.  We  are 
satisfied,  both  with  the  principle  and  the  results,  for  these 
have  brought  us  where  we  are.  All  parties  in  this  country 
appear  satisfied  so  far  as  Church  Membership  is  concerned. 
And  yet,  it  is  only  on  account  of  the  consistent  application 
of  the  same  principle  to  occasioiial  participation  that  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren  find  fault  with  us. 

13.  (3.)  We  remark  in  the  next  place,  that  this  parti- 
cipation, being  only  occasional  or  exceptional,  must  con- 
form to  the  principles  that  guide  us  in  the  formation  of 
our  Churches.  It  cannot  fail  to  be  to  us  a  matter  of 
surprise  and  regret  therefore,  that  we  should  be  charged 
so  frequently  and  earnestly  as  we  are,  with  illiberality,  for 
acting  in  the  one  case  exactly  as  we  do  in  the  other.  It 
never  can  or  ought  to  be  systematic,  to  participate  with 
any  Church,  but  that  to  which  we  belong.  And  our  course 
in  all  such  cases  ought  to  be  framed  on  the  principle  of 


108  COMMUNION. 

making  exceptions  bend  to  general  rules,  not  general  rules 
to  exceptions.  The  wliole  matter  is  to  be  regarded  as  one 
of  Christian  courtesy,  and  invitation,  not  of  right.  Such 
exceptive  cases  must  not  be  allowed  perpetually  to  alter 
regulations,  upon  which  all  agree  as  proper  for  other 
occasions.  Why  should  we  depart  from  all  analogy,  from 
all  antiquity,  from  everything  we  find  in  Scripture,  and 
put  our  occasional  participation  of  the  symbols  of  Com- 
munion on  a  footing  quite  different  from  that  of  our 
Church  fellowship  ?  We  take  our  stand  upon  this ;  that 
if  the  Lord^s  Suj)per  is  a  Church  ordinance^  if  it  is  the 
appointed  symbol  of  Church  relations,  it  should  only  he 
celebrated  together  with  those  with  lohom  we  can  consistently 
sustain  these  relations.  To  do  otherwise  is  to  symbolize 
more  than  we  should  be  willing  to  realize  in  action. 

14.  There  is  to  us  a  most  obvious  inconsistency  in  ad- 
mitting to  our  occasional  Gommumon  those  whom  we  should 
be  unwilling  to  admit  to  our  Church  Fellowship ;  making 
an  exception  in  favor  of  irregularity.  It  is  as  much  as  to 
say  that  those  admitted  are  good  enough  for  the  Lord's 
Table,  but  not  for  our  Church.  This  perhaps  is  not 
intended ;  but  it  may  at  least  be  well  compared  to  one 
welcoming  a  neighbor  to  his  piazza,  while  he  publicly  ex- 
cluded him  his  house.  Such  slender  and  discriminating 
hospitality  would  do  little  to  promote  good  social  feeling. 
Our  Methodist  brethren  are  about  to  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  they  invite  members  of  the  Baptist  Church 
to  commune  with  them,  and  they  feel  hurt  because  our 
views  do  not  enable  us  to  partake  or  reciprocate  the  invi- 
tation. Perhaps  they  think  and  say  that  we  refuse  to 
participate  with  them  in  Christian  Communion.  It  is  in 
vain  that  we  explain  the  difference  between  uniting  in 
Christian  Communion,  which  we  do  as  freely  with  them, 


METHODIST    PRINCIPLES    APPLIED.  109 

as  with  all  other  Christians,  and  in  the  tokens  not  of 
Christian  only,  but  also  of  Church  fellowship.  Or  if  we 
were  to  go  to  them  and  express  our  willingness  to  accept 
their  invitation  to  the  Lord's  Table,  not  for  once  only, 
but  permanently,  our  willingness  to  join  their  Churches, 
if  they  could  consistently  receive  us,  just  such  as  we  are, 
they  would  be  obliged,  if  they  should  act  in  conformity 
with  their  standards,  to  refuse  to  receive  us,  and  say,* 
^^  In  order  to  prevent  improper  persons  from  insinuating 
themselves  into  the  Church,  none  are  to  be  received  until 
they  have  given  satisfactory  assurances,  both  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  their  faith,  and  their  willingness  to  observe 
and  keep  the  rules  of  the  Church,^^ — their  faith  being  to  us 
antagonistically  Arminian,  and  their  rule  that  '^  the  bap- 
tism of  young  children  is  to  be  retained  in  the  Church/^ 
If  we  cannot  conscientiously  believe  the  Arminian  faith, 
or  live  up  to  Pedobaptist  rules,  their  standard  declares 
that  we  are  "  improper  persons"  to  belong  to  their  body. 
We  can  be  invited  to  the  occasional  participation  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  only  by  their  adopting  one  set  of  rules  for 
permanent,  and  another  for  the  occasional  celebration  of 
this  ordinance.  We  can  see  the  consistency  with  their 
own  principles,  in  having  such  rules  as  they  have  in  re- 
gard to  their  Church  Fellowship ;  but  we  cannot  see  that 
those  who  are  "  improper  persons"  for  the  Lord's  Supper, 
if  it  is  to  be  received  in  one  sense,  are  yet  proper  persons 
to  be  welcomed  to  the  very  same  table  in  another.  This, 
it  seems  to  us,  savors  of  that  Romish  doctrine,  that  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  sacraments  depends  upon  ^Hhe  intention." 

There  is  indeed  a  further  inconsistency  in  the  conduct 
pursued  by  our  Methodist  brethren,  in  regard  to  Ordi- 


See  Discipline,  cli.ip.  2,  sect. 
10 


110  COMMUNION. 

nances.  Eor  while  their  standards  invite  members  of 
other  Churches  to  partake  with  them  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
as  often  as  they  please,  which  is  really  a  Church  ordi- 
nance, they  refuse  to  admit  any,  not  of  their  own  Church, 
"  except  with  the  utmost  caution^^  even  to  he  'present  at 
their  Love  Feasts,  and  ^^  the  same  person  on  no  account 
above  twice  or  thrice,  except  he  become  a  member.'^*  One 
would  suppose  that  they  at  least  could  perceive  no  incon- 
sistency in  our  views  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  when  their  own 
are  so  nearly  similar,  we  were  about  to  say,  so  much  more 
exclusive,  in  regard  to  the  Love  Feast.  We  do  not  feel 
their  regulation  as  to  this  feast,  the  least  infringement 
upon  Christian  charity  or  fellowship,  because  the  Love 
Feast  is  intended  only  for  the  members  of  their  own 
Churches.  We  only  do  not  see  why  they  cannot  at  least, 
allow  us  to  take  the  same  view  of  the  Supper.  At  times 
indeed,  and  to  a  certain  degree,  they  seem  to  feel  thor- 
oughly, that  the  relation  expressed  towards  all  those  with 
whom  we  partake  of  this  ordinance,  even  occasionally,  is 
quite  analogous  to,  if  not  identical  with  that  of  being 
members  of  the  same  Church.  Thus  it  is  ordered,  that 
^^  No  person  shall  he  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Sujiper  among 
us,  who  is  guilty  of  any  practice,  for  which  we  would  exclude 
a  memher  of  our  Church.''-\  This  indicates  precisely  our 
view  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Our  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  brethren  are  far 
enough  from  entertaining  Robert  Hall's  views  of  the  consti- 
tution of  Christian  Churches.  They  would  not  be  willing 
to  give  up  all  denominational  peculiarities,  and  have  their 
members  and  even  their  ministers,  Arminians  or  Calvinists, 

*  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  2,  sect.  4. 
t  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  1,  sect.  23. 


PRESBYTERIAN  PRINCIPLES  APPLIED.    Ill 

Pedobaptists  or  Baptists^  just  as  it  might  happen.  It  is 
only  as  to  occasional  participation  that  they  differ  from  us. 
And  yet  how  can  they,  without  inconsistency  ?  They 
invite  us,  as  Baptists,  to  occasional  Communion.  If  we 
were  to  reply,  that  it  is  inconsistent  to  ask  us  to  occasional 
Communion,  while  they  deny  us  their  Church  Fellowship, 
they  would  perhaps  answer  that  they  did  not  exclude  us, 
we  excluded  ourselves,  for  that  we  could  join  the  Church 
also,  only  comjilying  witli  their  rules.  If,  then,  we  should 
say  that  we  were  willing  to  join,  provided  we  could  live 
and  practise  according  to  our  own  conscientious  and 
avowed  opinions,  their  standards  would  reply  that  all  who 
join  their  Churches,  ^^are  bound  to  perform  all  the  duties 
of  Church  members,"  and  among  these,  that  ^^  the  infants 
of  one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to  he  baptized."  We 
might,  with  at  least  equal  propriety,  say  that  we  do  not 
decline  to  receive  pious  Pedobaptists,  only  let  them  com- 
ply with  our  rules,  and  be  baptized. 

In  another  chapter  it  will  be  seen  that  we  do  not  differ 
as  to  the  principle  of  making  Baptism  a  prerequisite  even 
to  '^  occasional  communion." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

OBJECTIONS    CONSIDERED. 

1.  These  Objections  stated.  2.  "It  is  only  the  mode  of  Baptism  that 
prevents  us  from  uniting  with  Pedobaptists,"  considered.  3.  "  That 
we  do  not  consider  the  Baptism  of  Pedobaptists  as  valid,"  considered. 
4.  This  true.  5.  But  not  the  only  ground  for  our  not  uniting  with 
them.  6.  "That  we  unchurch  Pedobaptists,"  considered.  7.  The 
Lord's  Supper  not  designed  to  express  Church  relations  as  subsisting 
between  difterent  Churches.  8.  Custom  of  Baptist  Associations  un 
churches  ourselves  as  much  as  other  denominations.  9.  Each  Church 
entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of  its  own  fellowship.  10.  The  effect  of 
the  lack  of  a  valid  Baptism  in  unchurching,  considered.  1 1.  Differ- 
ent significations  of  the  word  Church.  12.  Those  unbaptized  cannot 
form  regular  Churches.  13.  Our  difference  as  to  Baptism  chiefly 
keeps  us  from  affiliating.  14.  Ought  our  Churches  to  make  Baptism 
necessary  to  their  membership  ?  15.  This  the  Primitive  plan,  con- 
ceded by  Robert  Hall.  16.  Importance  of  keeping  the  ordinances 
as  delivered  to  us.  17.  Ought  the  rule  of  Church  Membership  to 
be  extended  to  occasional  participation  ?  18.  This  conceded  by 
Christian  writers  of  all  ages.  19.  This  is  consistent  and  charitable. 
20.  Illustration  from  American  Citizenship. 

1.  It  has  often  been  objected  against  our  views  in  re- 
gard to  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  after  all,  it  is  nothing  but 
our  mode  of  baptism  that  really  draws  the  line  between 
us  and  our  Pedobaptist  brethren ;  that  not  recognizing 
their  baptism  as  valid,  we  unchurch  them  at  least,  if  we 
do  not  deny  their  title  to  be  considered  Christians. 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  are  here  in  reality  three 
objections,  that  may  be  thus  stated  more  at  length. 

(1.)  That  it  is  only  the  mode  of  Baptism  that  prevents 


NOT  A  MERE  MODE  DIVIDES  US.      113 

Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  from  celebrating  the  Eucharist 
together. 

(2.)  That  at  least,  Baptists  do  not  recognize  the  baptism 
of  Pedobaptists  as  valid,  and  on  this  account  refuse  to 
celebrate  with  them. 

(3. )  That  by  not  uniting  with  Pedobaptists  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  we  unchurch  them. 

2.  (1.)  With  regard  to  the  first  of  these,  that  it  is  only 
the  mode  of  baptism  that  prevents  our  denomination  from 
uniting  with  Pedobaptists  at  the  Lord's  Table,  it  is  quite 
an  error  to  suppose  that  it  is  simply  because  they  are  not 
immersed,  that  we  do  not  admit  the  validity  of  their  Bap- 
tism, or  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  with  them.  We  hold 
indeed  that  the  word  Baptism  essentially  and  necessarily 
embraces  the  idea  of  immersion  ;  that  as  a  Scriptural  ordi- 
nance, it  always  was  in  primitive  times,  and  ever  ought  to 
be  administered  in  the  way  indicated  by  the  term  itself; 
and  while  we  fully  concede  that  our  brethren  in  the  Lord 
of  various  denominations  may  be  as  truly  and  spiritually 
^Mead  with  Christ"  to  the  power  and  dominion  of  sin  as 
ourselves,  yet  we  feel  that  of  no  person  who  is  not  im- 
mersed in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  as  a  profession  of  the 
Christian  faith,  can  it  be  said,  as  St.  Paul  said  of  all  the 
members  of  primitive  Churches,  that  they  are  ^'buried 
with  him  hy  baptism.''     Rom.  6:  4. 

But  Dr.  Grriffin  greatly  erred,  when  in  his  letter  on  this 
subject,  (See  Appendix  to  Fuller  on  Communion,  p.  244,) 
he  asserted  that  "the  separating  point  is  not  about  the 

subjects  of  baptism,  but  merely  the  mode" "in 

other  words,  whether  baptism  by  sprinkling,  is  valid 
baptism."  That  this  is  not  the  chief  difficulty  is  easily 
demonstrable;  for  it  is  well  known  that  none  of  the  bap- 
tisms of  the  Greek  Church,  though  always  performed  by 

10* 


114  COMMUNION. 

immersion  would  by  us  be  esteemed  valid,  and  this  simply 
because  tbey  are  administered  in  infancy,  and  not  as  a 
profession  of  personal  faith  in  Christ. 

3.  (2.)  With  respect  to  the  second  objection,  that  we 
do  not  recognize  the  baptism  of  Pedobaptists  as  valid, 
and  on  this  account  refuse  to  celebrate  with  them ;  it  is 
indeed  true  that  we  do  not  regard  the  sprinkling  of  an 
infant  as  valid  Christian  baptism.  Our  reasons  for  this 
are  open  to  the  world  ;  they  have  been  expressed  again  and 
again,  in  all  charity  and  affection ;  they  have  never  been 
answered,  and  we  feel  sure  they  never  can  be.  This  does 
not  however  prevent  our  entertaining  the  warmest  affection 
for  and  Communion  with  Pedobaptists  as  Christians.  It 
causes  us  to  desire  them  to  be  truly  baptized,  before  we 
can  unite  with  them  in  Church  relations,  or  the  symbols 
of  those  relations ;  on  the  same  principle  that  their  attach- 
ment to  infant  baptism  makes  their  standards  require  con- 
formity to  that  practice,  of  all  who  unite  permanently  with 
them. 

4.  Certainly,  the  most  important,  though  not  the  only 
point  of  our  difference  on  the  subject  of  baptism  is,  that 
we  hold  it  to  be  intended  essentially  as  a  public  confession 
of  personal  faith  in  Christ.  Infant  baptism  is  not,  and 
cannot  be  at  all  the  same  in  its  purpose.  It  is  no  profes- 
sion of  the  faith  of  the  party  baptized,  and  therefore  as 
utterly  void,  as  any  bond  or  deed  executed  in  the  name  of 
an  unconscious  infant  by  a  third  party  would  be  in  law. 
We  hold  baptism  to  be,  not  only  the  profession  of  a  past 
change,  but  a  voluntary  pledge  of  future  obedience;  a 
divinely  appointed  act  of  personal  dedication  and  consecra- 
tion of  the  heart  and  life  to  the  service  of  Grod.  See  Rom. 
6:  11 — 13.  Hence  it  is  that  the  baptisms  of  the  Grreek 
Church  are  as  utterly  void  in  our  esteem  as  those  of  the 


WE    DO    NOT    UNCHURCH    ANY.  115 

Cliurcli  of  Rome.  If  our  views  are  correct  all  those  who 
have  never  voluntarily  submitted  themselves  to  this  ordi- 
nance, have  omitted  the  divinely  appointed  method  of 
publicly  consecrating  themselves  to  the  service  of  God. 

It  is  quite  true  therefore  that  we  do  not  admit  the 
validity  of  the  baptisms  in  question.  The  above  are  some  of 
the  reasons.  We  sincerely  ask  and  urge  all  Christians  to 
ponder  well  the  ground  we  take.  The  further  discussion 
of  it  belongs  more  properly  to  the  Baptismal  controversy, 
and  must  here  be  dropped. 

5.  But  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing,  though  we  do 
not  stop  to  urge  it,  that  it  is  not  quite  correct  to  say,  as 
often  is  said,  that  the  only  ground  of  our  not  uniting  in  the 
occasional  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  all  Pedo- 
baptists  is  their  baptism ;  for  we  do  not  commonly  cele- 
brate with  Free-will  Baptists,  who  agree  with  us  in  regard 
to  that  ordinance,  but  are  Arminians,  nor  with  immersed 
members  of  other  Churches,  nor  with  the  Campbellites. 
That  which  draws  the  line  is,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  con- 
sidered by  us  a  symbol  of  Church  fellowship;  so  that  those 
with  whom  we  could  not  unite  in  the  one,  we  do  not  feel 
at  liberty  to  unite  with  in  the  other. 

6.  (3.)  As  to  the  third  objection,  that  by  not  uniting 
with  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  we 
unchurch  them,  it  will  be  evident,  on  the  least  considera- 
tion, that  our  practice  in  regard  to  this  ordinance,  our 
^'  close  communion,^'  as  it  is  often  termed,  does  not  inti- 
mate this,  either  directly  or  indirectly ;  since  we  do  not 
profess  to  partake  of  that  ordinance  with  all  Christians, 
or  with  the  members  of  all  true  Churches,  any  more  than 
the  Methodists  in  their  Love  Feast ;  or  any  more  than  the 
Jews  in  celebrating  the  Passover  professed  to  be  ready  to 


116  COMMUNION. 

unite  in  observing  it  at  the  same  table  with  all  whom  they 
considered  to  be  true  Israelites. 

7.  That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  designed  to  express 
Church  relations  as  subsisting  between  different  Churches 
as  such,  is  evident ;  for  this  would  imply  either  that  many 
of  them  together  form  one  great  Church,  or  that  all  are 
parts  of  a  Universal  Visible  Church,  implying  a  visible 
central  government,  perhaps  a  universal  bishop,  and  thus 
Roman  Catholicism.  This  would  certainly  destroy  Church 
independence. 

8.  It  is  on  this  account,  that  it  has  not  been  usual  for 
the  Associations  and  Conventions  of  Baptist  Churches, 
when  assembled,  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  together. 
When  this  is  done,  it  is  always  by  special  invitation  of  the 
particular  Church  with  which  the  body  meets,  to  the  dele- 
gates, as  so  many  brethren  of  the  same  faith  and  order. 
We  invite  them  only  as  individual  Christians.  We  do 
not  regard  all  the  Churches  represented  as,  for  the  time, 
thrown  into  one,  even  of  our  own  denomination.  We 
might  therefore,  with  at  least  equal  propriety,  be  charged 
with  declaring  our  own  not  true  Churches,  because  as  such 
we  refuse  to  celebrate  with  them,  as  to  be  charged  with 
unchurching  those  of  other  denominations  by  the  course 
we  pursue. 

9.  In  our  view,  each  particular  Church  is  a  separate 
and  independent  body,  with  authority  derived  immediately 
from  the  Grreat  Head  of  the  Church,  and  "  entitled  co  de- 
clare the  terms  of  admission  into  its  Communion,  and  the 
qualifications  of  its  members;"  (Form  of  Government  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  Bk.  1,  ch.  1,  sec.  2;)  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  token,  divinely  appointed,  which  sym- 
bolizes, among  other  things,  the  relation  which  each  mem- 


THE  LACK  OF  VALID  BAPTISM.       117 

ber  of  that  Church  sustains  to  every  other.  Hence  we 
unite  in  that  ordinance,  only  with  such  as  are,  or  but  for 
local  causes  might  be,  and  therefore  are  temporarily  con- 
sidered, members  of  the  same  Church.  All  that  our  course, 
in  declining  to  celebrate  with  members  of  other  denomi- 
nations, exhibits,  therefore,  is  that  such  persons  do  not 
belong  to  Churches  of  our  order.  In  this,  however,  we  no 
more  unchurch  all  other  Churches,  than  the  Presbyterian, 
when  he  insists  that  in  his  Church,  the  infants  of  all  the 
members  ^^  are  to  be  baptized,^^  or  than  the  Methodist  un- 
churches us,  each  time  he  celebrates  the  Love  Feast,  or 
refuses  to  give  up  preaching  Arminianism  as  his  creed, 
or  instructing  all  the  parents  in  his  flock  to  bring  their 
infants  forward  for  Baptism. 

10.  What  effect  the  lack  of  a  valid  baptism  may  have 
in  unchurching  those  who  have  not  made  the  divinely 
appointed  profession  of  their  faith,  it  belongs  not  to  our 
present  discussion  to  settle,  but  rather  to  that  of  Baptism. 
This  must  depend  upon  how  far  Baptism  is  regarded  as 
essentially  prerequisite  to  Church  membership.  Almost 
all  Pedobaptists  so  regard  it;  and  so  far  would  seem  to 
unchurch  themselves.  We  do  not  care  to  discuss  the  ab- 
stract question  here,  because  it  belongs  not  to  the  subject 
in  hand.  We  shall  however  express  in  all  candor  our  own 
opinion. 

11.  The  original  word  for  Church  is  used  with  different 
significations  in  Scripture.  In  one  sense,  even  the  tu- 
multuous assembly  at  Ephesus,  is  so  designated  [sxx'KrjtjLa.) 
Acts  19:  32.  Any  Christian  '  congregation,^  especially  if 
assembled  for  worship,  would  have  been  thus  called  in  the 
time  of  the  Saviour  and  his  Apostles.  Matt.  18:  17.  All 
organized  religious  bodieS;   acknowledging  the  Headship 


118  COMMUNION. 

of  Christ,  and  assembling  for  the  worship  of  the  Father 
through  Him,  we  regard  as  ChHstian  Churches.  Certainly 
our  opinions  and  rules  as  to  occasional  Communion  do  not 
in  the  least  prevent  our  considering  all  the  congregations 
of  professed  Christians  as  Churches,  in  as  general  or  spe- 
cific a  sense  as  other  things  may  permit.  This  has  been 
again  and  again  shown  by  our  principal  writers  on  Com- 
munion. We  only  do  not  consider  them  regular  Churches 
according  to  the  New  Testament  pattern,  and  with  such 
alone  do  we  partake.     (See  Dagg  on  Com.  Ch.  3,  sect.  1.) 

12.  That  which  alone  concerns  us  here  in  regard  to 
baptism  is,  that  Churches  of  our  order,  are  organized  on 
the  basis  of  all  their  members  being  baptized  persons. 
This  we  consider  the  only  regular  plan  according  to  the 
New  Testament,  nor  do  any  differ  from  us  on  this  point. 
But  we  in  no  way  assert  that  they  may  not  be  formed 
irregularly,  and  yet  be  fully  entitled  to  the  appellation  of 
true  Christian  Churches.  It  is  a  question  we  are  not 
called  upon  to  settle.  If  a  company  of  believers  without 
any  Baptism  at  all,  as,  for  instance  a  body  of  Quakers, 
claimed  that  title,  we  should  have  nothing  to  say  against 
it.  Many  of  the  promises  which  Christ  made  of  being 
with  his  people  to  the  end  of  the  world,  are  often  realized 
in  their  assemblies. 

13.  But  it  is  true  that  Baptism  is  the  chief  thing  that 
prevents  us  from  afiiliating  with  those  Pedobaptist 
Churches  which  are  of  similar  faith,  and  of  Congregational 
government.  The  separation  did  not  however  originate 
with  us,  but  with  them.  Our  Churches  are  formed  on  a 
clear  and  distinctive  basis,  as  much  so  as  those  of  any 
other  denomination.  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  Congrega- 
tional or  Methodist,  Dr.  Bushnell  concedes  to  us  even 
a  much  more  distinctive  basis. 


BAPTISM    NECESSARY    TO    MEMBERSHIP.         119 

The  only  possible  questions  tlien  remaining  (if  indeed 
the  reader  is  not  already  satisfied  as  to  them)  are,  first,  if 
it  is  proper  for  our  Churches  to  make  Baptism  necessary 
to  their  membership ;  and,  secondly,  if  it  is  proper  that 
this  rule  as  to  Church  membership  should  be  extended  to 
the  occasional  participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

14.  (1.)  As  to  the  first,  that  it  is  proper  for  our 
Churches  to  make  baptism  necessary  in  order  to  their 
membership,  there  will  be  no  question  with  any  body  of 
Christians  in  this  country.  There  certainly  will  not,  with 
our  Methodist  brethren,  who,  in  italics,  declare  "  Let  none 
be  received  into  the  Church  until  ....  they  have  met 
at  least  six  months  on  trial,  and  have  been  haptized,''  &c. 
(Discipline,  ch.  2,  sec.  2.)  Nor  will  there  be  any  contro- 
versy on  this  point  between  us  and  our  Presbyterian  bre- 
thren, who  declare  that  ^'  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  .... 
for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  "party  baptized  inlo  the 
visible  Church.''  (Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  28,  1.)  Much 
less  will  there  be  any  between  us  and  our  Episcopalian 
brethren,  who  declare  that  baptism  is  ^'  a  sign  of  Regene- 
ration or  new  birth,  lohereby^  as  by  an  instrument  they 
that  receive  baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into  the  Church.'' 
The  symbols  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches  contain  the 
same  doctrine.  The  Roman  Catholics  hold  thesame.  So 
that  if  we  are  in  error  here,  it  would  be  impossible  to  find 
any  body  of  Christians  in  this  country,  professing  to  be  a 
Church,  that  could  cast  at  us  the  first  stone.  Indeed,  ex- 
cept a  portion  of  our  own  denomination  in  England,  whose 
plan  we  have  already  considered,  there  is  probably  no 
such  body  throughout  the  Christian  world.  Our  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  will  surely  never  impute  to  us,  illiberality 
for  not  occupying  a  position  that  they  themselves  are  un- 
willing to  assume,  and  cne  that  has  left  our  Baptist  bre- 


120  COMMUNIOIS'. 

thren  in  England  so  far  behind  tliose  of  America^  in  point 
of  numerical  increase.* 

15.  That  our  plan  of  Cliurch  membership  is  the  primi- 
tive one,  even  Rabert  Hall  concedes.  "  On  the  same  princi- 
ple'' says  he,  "we  account  for  tJie  members  of  the  primitive 
Church  consisting  of  only  such  as  were  haj)tized,  without 
erecting   that   circumstance    into    an    invariable   rule    of 

action We  are  willing  to  go  a  step  further, 

and  to  acknowledge  that  he  who,  convinced  of  the  divine 
origin  of  Christianity  by  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles,  had 
refused  to  be  baptized,  would  at  that  period  have  been  justly 

debarred  from  receiving  the  sacramental  elements 

On  these  grounds,  it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  that  a  pri- 
mitive convert,  or  rather  a  pretended  convert,  who  without 
doubting  that  baptism,  in  the  way  in  which  we  practise 
it,  formed  a  part  of  the  Apostolic  Communion,  had  refused 
compliance,  would  have  been  deemed  unworthy  Christian 
Communion,  not  on  account  of  any  specific  connection 
between  the  two  ordinances,  but  on  account  of  his  evincing 
a  spirit  totally  repugnant  to  the  mind  of  Christ.  By  re- 
jecting the  only  authority  established  upon  earth,  for  the 
direction  of  conscience  and  the  termination  of  doubts  and 
controversies,  he  would  undoubtedly  have  been  repelled  as  a 
contumacious  schismatic."  (See  Terms  of  Communion, 
Part  1,  sect.  3.) 

16.  It  is,  and  must  be  then,  abundantly  conceded,  that 
in  restricting  our  Church  fellowship  to  the  baptized,  we 
are  but  following  primitive  custom.     All  that  even  Mr. 

*  At  the  late  Baptist  Anniversaiv'es  in  London,  (1849),  it  was  made  a 
matter  ofpixblic  congratnlation  among  our  brethren,  that,  while,  for  the 
last  seven  years,  the  average  increase  had  been  one  member  to  each 
church,  per  annum,  it  had  reached  during  the  last  year,  four  members 
to  each  church  ! 


THE  BURDEN  OF  PROOF  NOT  ON  US.     121 

Hall  contends  for,  is,  that  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  as 
a  matter  of  certainty,  that  because  the  first  Churches  and 
Apostles  did  so,  we  are  obliged  to  do  the  same,  but  that 
it  may  have  been  one  of  those  accidental  coincidences, 
like  the  celebrating  of  the  Eucharist  with  unleavened 
bread.  Something  even  more  than  this  is,  it  seems  to  us, 
conceded,  when  it  is  allowed  that  he  who  violated  this 
order  in  primitive  times,  "  loould  have  heen  repelled  as  a 
contumacious  schismatic  f'  and  withou  there  discussing  the 
specific  and  necessary  connection  between  the  two  ordi- 
nances, we  may  remark  that  it  requires  to  be  very  clearly 
shown,  why,  if  the  Apostles  were  on  earth,  they  would 
not  "  repel  as  a  contumacious  schismatic,"  now  as  well  as 
at  first,  him  who  should  invert  the  order  in  which  they 
established  the  Church.  The  burden  of  proof  clearly  lies 
on  that  side.  At  any  rate,  it  is  fully  sufficient  for  our 
justification  and  encouragement  to  feel  assured,  as  it  is  by 
Mr.  Hall  himself  conceded,  that  our  customs  in  relation  to 
Church  membership  are  those  followed  by  the  Apostles ; 
— customs,  any  departure  from  which  by  them  would  have 
been  esteemed  contumacious  schism.  Thus  did  the  Apos- 
tles, and  so  do  we.  It  was  an  occasion  of  praise  and  con- 
gratulation by  the  Apostle  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  when  the  primitive  order  was  observed. 
"  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  heep  the  ordinances,  as 
I  delivered  them  unto  you.''  This  is  what  we  aim  to  do; 
to  form  our  Churches  on  the  primitive  plan.  Whether 
in  regard  to  the  mode  or  subjects  of  baptism,  the  bread 
and  wine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  the  order  in  which  the 
two  ordinances  respectively  stand  to  each  other,  we  wish 
to  keep  them  "  as  they  were  delivered  unto  us"  originally. 
We  keep  Baptism,  as  it  was  delivered  unto  us,  not  caring 
to  enquire  or  discuss  for  ourselves,  whether  sprinkling  or 
11 


122  COMMUNION. 

pouring  might  do,  but  unhesitatingly  submitting  our  bodies 
to  be  ''  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism."  It  is  thus  also 
that  we,  and  indeed  all  Protestants,  act  in  regard  to  the 
two  elements  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  How  urgently,  and 
how  justly,  have  we  all  reproached  Roman  Catholics,  for 
administering  the  Eucharist  but  in  one  kind,  and  with- 
holding the  cup  from  the  laity.  Supposing  that  any 
denomination  of  Christians  were  to  propose  to  change  the 
elements,  with  what  feelings  would  all  others  look  upon 
the  substitution  ?  Who  would  choose  even  to  invert  the 
order  of  the  administration,  by  giving  the  wine  before  the 
bread?  though  no  reason  whatever  can  be  assigned,  why 
all  Christians  should  observe  the  order  they  do,  except  that 
it  was  that  uniformly  observed  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 
If  thus  all  Protestants  feel  and  act  in  regard  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  why  should  there  not  be  an  equal  sensitiveness  as 
to  any  deviation  from  primitive  practice  in  regard  to  Bap- 
tism ?  and  why  should  not  the  order' of  the  two  institutions 
remain  with  us  all,  even  as  at  first  ?  Why  should  it  be  a 
matter  of  reproach,  that  we  "  keep  the  ordinances,  as  they 
were  delivered  unto  us"  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ  ? 

17.  (2.)  The  only  remaining  point  then  is,  whether 
this  rule,  which  makes  Baptism  a  prerequisite  to  member- 
ship in  our  Churches,  is  properly  extended  to  the  occasional 
participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

This  has  already  been  settled,  so  far  as  the  general 
principle  is  concerned  in  the  Chapter  on  Occasional  Com- 
munion) particularly  pp.  108 — HI;  and  it  has  been  also 
shown  that  as  the  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes  Church  fel- 
lowship, those  only  can  consistently  be  invited  to  the  one, 
who  are  admissible  to  the  other.  We  desire  therefore 
simply  to  add  here  some  remarks  upon  the  special  connec- 
tion between  the  LordU   Supper  and  Baptism.     That  in 


UNIVERSAL   PRACTICE   OF   CHRISTIANS.  123 

conformity  with  primitive  practice,  no  person  could  be 
admitted  to  "occasional  communion/^  any  more  than  to 
Church  fellowship,  if  not  baptized,  is  allowed  by  Robert 
Hall  himself  in  the  preceding  extract.  That  such  has  been 
the  universal  practice  of  Christians  of  all  ages  and  places, 
except  the  Mixed  Communion  Baptists,  it  will  now  be  our 
object  to  show. 

18.  In  his  second  Apology,  Justin  Martyr  (within  fifty 
years  of  the  times  of  the  Apostles,)  speaking  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  says,  "  of  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  to  partake, 
but  such  as  believe  the  things  taught  by  us  to  be  true, 
and  have  been  baptizedJ' 

In  the  third  century,  it  was  a  law  of  the  Church,  "  Let 
no  one  eat  of  these  (that  is  of  the  elements  of  the  Lord's 
Supper)  that  is  not  initiated,  but  those  only  who  have 
been  baptized  unto  the  death  of  the  Lord."*  It  would 
be  idle  to  multiply  instances  of  the  care  with  which  even 
catechumens  were  excluded  from  the  Lord's  Supper.  In 
the  year  607,  a  bitter  persecution  of  the  Christian  Saxons 
originated  in  nothing  else  but  an  adherence  to  this  view. 
The  Venerable  Bede  says  (lib.  3,  c.  5),  "  After  the  death 
of  Eadbald,  King  of  the  East  Saxons,  his  sons  re-estab- 
lished idolatry  in  that  kingdom,  and  when  they  saw  the 
minister  (^pontificeTii)  ....  give  the  Eucharist  to  the 
people,  inflated  with  a  barbarous  folly,  they  said  to  him 
*  Why  do  you  not  give  to  us  that  beautiful  bread,  which  you 
used  to  give  to  our  Father  Saba  V  To  which  he  answered, 
^  If  ye  will  be  washed  in  that  salubrious  font,  wherein 
your  father  was  washed,  ye  may  partake  of  this  holy 
bread ;  but  if  ye  despise  the  water  of  life,  ye  cannot  receive 
the  bread  of  life.'     Upon  which  they  said,  ^  We  will  not 

*  Apostolic  Constitutions,  Lib.  7,  c  25. 


124  COMMUNION. 

enter  that  font,  because  we  know  we  stand  not  in  need  of 
it,  but  nevertlieless  we  desire  to  be  refreshed  with  that 
bread/  And  when  they  had  been  frequently  and  dili- 
gently admonished  that  no  one  could  lawfully  partake  of 
the  holy  oblation,  without  that  most  holy  washing,  being 
at  length  aroused  to  indignation,  they  exclaimed,  '  If  you 
will  not  oblige  us  in  such  a  trifling  matter,  you  can  no 
longer  remain  in  our  province.'  And  they  expelled  him, 
and  commanded  him  to  depart  from  their  dominion  with 
his  followers.''  These  men  were  not  Baptists,  although 
in  those  days,  no  other  baptism  but  that  of  immersion 
was  practised.  They  were  monks  sent  from  Rome,  under 
Augustine.  Yet  it  was  clearly  the  sentiment  of  all  Chris- 
tians, in  those  days,  that  it  was  better  to  be  expelled, 
better  to  leave  the  country  even  to  Paganism,  better  that 
the  sword  of  persecution  should  decimate  the  Church,  than 
this  rule  be  violated.  Our  object  here,  is  not  to  vindicate 
all  the  views  upheld  by  these  men,  but  only  to  show  that 
if  any  change  were  to  be  introduced  into  our  plan  in  re- 
gard to  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  could  only  be  done  at  the 
expense  of  a  great  innovation,  and  of  going  contrary,  not 
only  to  the  usages  of  our  own  denomination,  but  of  all 
antiquity,  and  of  those  sentiments  for  which  Christians  of 
every  name  have  thought  it  worthy,  rather  to  sufl"er  mar- 
tyrdom than  abandon. 

No  denomination  of  Christians  has  ever  discarded  this 
belief.  Individuals  among  the  Baptists,  who  have  fol- 
lowed Robert  Hall,  have  done  so  3  but  numberless  extracts 
from  the  chief  writers  of  all  the  Churches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, might  be  adduced  to  show  that  our  practice  on  this 
point  is  held  by  them  all. 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  says,  ''  No 
Church  ever  gave  the  Communion  to  any  persons  before 


BAPTISM   BEFORE    THE    EUCHARIST.  125 

they  were  baptized.  Among  all  the  absurdities  that  ever 
were  held,  none  ever  maintained  that,  that  any  person 
should  partake  of  the  Communion  before  he  was  bap- 
tized/'* 

Dr.  Doddridge,  in  referring  to  this  subject  in  his  Lec- 
tures, says,  ^^  It  is  certain,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  of  primi- 
tive antiquity  reaches,  no  unbaptized  person  received  the 
Lord's  Supper.  How  excellent  soever  any  man's  character 
is,  he  must  be  baptized,  before  he  can  be  looked  upon  as 
completely  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ." 

Dr.  Hopkins,  the  celebrated  New  England  divine,  says, 
'^  No  one  is  to  be  considered  and  treated  as  a  member  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  unless  he  be  baptized  with  water; 
as  this  is  the  only  door  by  which  persons  can  be  introduced 
into  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ,  according  to  his  ap- 
pointment." 

Dr.  Dwight,  the  celebrated  Theological  writer,  says  that 
''it  is  an  indispensable  qualification  for  this  ordinance  that 
a  candidate  for  communion  be  a  member  of  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ  in  full  standing.  By  this,  I  intend  that 
he  should  be  a  person  of  piety,  that  he  should  have  made 
a  public  profession  of  religion,  and  that  he  should  have  been 
baptized /'-f 

Dr.  Griffin  remarks,  in  his  Letter  on  this  subject  in  1829, 
^'  I  agree  with  the  advocates  of  close  communion  in  two 
points:  1.  That  baptism  is  the  initiating  ordinance  which 
introduces  us  into  the  visible  Church  ;  of  course,  where 
there  is  no  baptism,  there  are  no  visible  Churches.  2. 
That  we  ought  not  to  commune  with  those  who  are 
not   baptized,   and  of  course  are  not  Church   members, 

*  Part  2,  ch.  9. 

t  Sermons  on  Theology,  160.     For  several  of  the  above  quotations,  I 
am  indebted  to  former  writers,  particularly  "  Howell,  on  Communion." 
11* 


126  COMMUNION. 

even  if  we  regard  them  as  Christians.  Should  a  pious 
Quaker  so  far  depart  from  his  principles,  as  to  wish  to 
commune  with  me  at  the  Lord's  Table,  while  he  yet 
refused  to  be  baptized,  I  could  not  receive  him;  because 
there  is  such  a  relationship  established  between  the  two 
ordinances,  that  Iliave  no  riglit  to  separate  them ^  in  other 
words,  I  have  no  right  to  send  the  sacred  elements  out  of 
the  Church/^  Such  are  the  opinions  and  concessions  of 
our  Pedobaptist  brethren. 

19.  The  ground  which  we  take  in  regard  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  practically  harmonizes  with  that  of  Christians  of  all 
ages  and  climes.  It  is  simple,  charitable,  and  consistent  with 
itself.  We  have  a  full  and  perfect  fellowship  or  commu- 
nion as  Christians,  with  all  the  followers  of  Christ  so  far 
as  we  know  them.  With  those  who  agree  with  us  cere- 
monially, we  ceremonially  commune.  Where  we  agree  as 
to  ordinances,  we  celebrate  ordinances  together.  Where 
otherwise,  we  do  not.  We  differ  from  many  as  to  what 
Baptism  is,  and  we  feel  sure  that  we  are  right.  We  ask, 
in  all  love  and  charity,  our  brethren  of  different  denomi- 
nations to  examine  the  point  of  difference  for  themselves, 
prayerfully,  and  with  a  fixed  determination  to  follow 
wherever  Christ  leads.  But  all  denominations  most  fully 
coincide  with  us,  that  those  only  who  agree  as  to  ordi- 
nances, i.  e.  who  regard  as  valid,  each  other's  baptism, 
should  partake  together  of  the  other  ordinance,  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

But  with  all  Christians,  as  such,  we  commune  most 
heartily  and  truly.  We  commune  in  prayer,  which  was 
the  great  ancient  test;  in  preaching,  in  singing,  in  expe- 
rience, in  many  Christian  efforts:  in  everything  except 
that  in  which  they  do  not  agree  with  us.  Church  ordi- 
nances.    Can  anything  be  more  just,  truthful,  and  proper? 


ILLUSTRATION.  127 

♦ 
20.  Suppose,  in  order  to  render  this  matter  perfectly 

clear,  that  a  foreigner  should  have  taken  up  his  abode  in 
this  country  for  many  years;  and  from  an  ardent  attach- 
ment to  its  liberties  and  citizens,  and  an  honest  preference 
of  our  institutions,  have  made  it  his  home.  For  some 
reason,  perhaps  only  through  ignorance  of  the  law,  let  us 
suppose  that  he  has  never  gone  through  the  ceremony  of 
naturalization :  neglected  even  to  give  the  regular  notice 
of  his  intention  to  do  so.  If  he  were  to  present  himself 
at  the  proper  place  at  some  election,  would  it  be  right  that 
he  should  be  allowed  to  vote  ?  None  will  contend  that  he 
should.  He  might  be  an  excellent  man,  far  more  worthy 
and  better  qualified  than  thousands  entitled  to  the  privi- 
lege ;  still  all  would  perceive  that  in  removing  the  obstacle 
that  hinders  him  from  voting,  we  should  break  down  the 
whole  naturalization  law, — a  barrier  which  prevents  the 
inhabitants  of  the  whole  world  from  overturning  the  liber- 
ties we  enjoy.  So  it  would  be  impossible  for  us  to  parti- 
cipate in  the  Lord^s  Supper  with  those  not  baptized,  even 
occasionally,  without  overturning  the  whole  New  Testament 
law  of  Baptism.  Robert  Hall,  as  we  have  seen,  fully  ad- 
mits that  it  would  destroy  Baptist  Churches,  as  such. 

If  now,  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  any  per- 
son should  be  disposed  to  assert  that  we  refuse  Communion 
with  those  on  earth,  with  whom  we  expect  to  commune  in 
heaven,  we  reply  that  it  is  a  complete  error,  based  upon 
confounding  the  literal  and  figurative  use  of  terms.  We 
do  not.  We  are  willing  to  commune  with  all  those  on 
earth,  with  whom  we  expect  to  commune  in  heaven,  and 
precisely  in  the  same  way,  i.  e.  spiritually.  We  do  not 
expect  there  to  participate  in  the  outward  symbols  of  bread 
and  wine.  These  were  appointed  to  show  forth  the  Lord's 
death  only   '^  until  he  come."     All  that  can  be  said  in 


128  COMMUNION. 

• 
regard  to  our  practice  is,  that  we  decline  to  celebrate  the 

symbols  of  a  particular  Churcli  Communion  with  those, 
between  whom  and  ourselves  there  is  no  such  relation 
existing,  as  the  symbols  would  indicate  !  But  the  injus- 
tice of  this  accusation  can  perhaps  thus  be  most  readily 
illustrated.  It  is  well  known  that  in  America,  a  foreigner 
enjoys  privileges,  which  in  most  countries  are  denied  to 
any  but  citizens.  He  can  travel  unmolested,  and  without 
passport ;  avow  any  religion,  engage  in  any  business,  prac- 
tise any  profession.  He  is  equally  protected  by  law ;  and 
except  voting  for  the  officers  of  the  government,  and  one 
or  two  restrictions  of  that  kind,  enjoys  all  the  advantages 
of  a  citizen,  though  he  may  never  have  been  naturalized. 
He  is  received  with  friendship,  according  to  his  worth,  as 
a  man,  and  as  a  citizen  of  the  world.  Suppose  however 
that  this  individual,  after  having  lived  thus  for  many 
years,  respected,  beloved,  and  happy,  on  being  informed 
that  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  go  through  the  forms 
of  naturalization  before  he  could  be  permitted  to  vote, 
should  assert  that  in  this  country  all  foreigners  who  had 
through  ignorance  or  other  causes  neglected  these  regula- 
tions were  denied  their  just  privileges,  were  outlawed,  and 
cast  out  of  the  pale  of  society, — would  it  not  be  a  libel 
on  the  free  institutions  of  the  country?  Might  not  any 
one  reply  to  him.  If  you  prefer  to  neglect  the  ceremony  of 
naturalization,  you  will  also  see  the  necessity  of  omitting 
the  ceremony  of  voting?  In  all  other  respects,  you  enjoy 
equal  privileges,  protection,  and  esteem  with  other  mem- 
bers of  society  according  to  your  merits,  and  are  held  in 
more  true  regard  if  deserving  it,  perhaps,  than  many  who 
may  be  naturalized  or  native  citizens. 

This  is  a  precise  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which,  as 
Baptists,  we  regard  the  members  of  other  Christian  deno- 


THE   TWO    SYMBOLS    ON   A   LEVEL.  129 

minations.  We  enjoy  with  them  the  warmest  and  truest 
communion  as  Christians,  in  prayer,  in  the  interchange  of 
pulpits,  as  ^'  fellow-citizens  of  the  household  of  faith,'^  in 
fact,  in  everything  except  those  points  on  which  we  differ. 
Church  ordinances.  If  they  say  that  Baptism  is  a  mere 
ceremony,  and  as  such  the  neglect  of  it  ought  not  to  dehar 
them  from  partaking  with  us  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  then 
we  reply,  that  the  same  view  that  would  reduce  Baptism 
to  a  mere  ceremony,  must  reduce  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the 
same  level.  Those  who  voluntarily  neglect  the  one  as  a 
matter  of  no  importance,  will  not  be  surprised  that  we 
should  treat  them  as  those  who  put  an  equally  low  esti- 
mate on  the  other. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

REVIEW   OF   PARTS   I.    AND   II. 

1.  Distinction  between  Communion  and  its  Symbols.  2.  Different 
kinds  of  Communion  specified.  3,  The  Nature  of  Symbols.  4.  Dif- 
ferent Symbols  of  Communion.  5.  Symbols  of  Communion  -with 
Christ,  (a)  Baptism.  (&)  Lord's  Supper.  6.  Symbols  of  Christian 
fellowship.  7.  The  Lord's  Supper  a  Symbol  of  Church  fellowship. 
8.  Further  proofs  of  this.  9.  Additional  proofs — The  Passover — but 
one  Altar  to  a  Church.  10.  May  it  be  used  for  other  purposes  ? 
11.  Eobert  Hall's  "leading  position"  considered.  12.  This  confounds 
the  Visible  and  Invisible  Churches.  13.  "  Occasional  Communion." 
14.  The  case  of  other  denominations  considered.  15.  Three  objec- 
tions considered.  16.  That  we  deny  the  validity  of  their  baptisms. 
17.  That  we  unchurch  other  denominations.     18.  Our  own  position. 

1.  "We  have  in  tlie  previous  parts  of  tliis  work,  laid 
down  in  detail,  and  with  some  copiousness,  the  principles 
which  should  regulate  our  Communion  as  Christians,  and 
as  members  of  the  visible  Churches  of  Christ,  our  sym- 
bolic as  well  as  our  spiritual  relations.  We  propose  to 
occupy  the  concluding  chapter  of  this  portion  of  our  work, 
with  a  condensed  view  of  the  whole  ground  over  which 
we  have  gone,  so  far  as  it  bears  on  our  peculiar  opinions 
and  practice  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Thus  it  is 
hoped  that  the  reader  will  be  enabled  to  perceive  more 
clearly  and  comprehensively  the  position  we  occupy,  and 
to  determine,  in  the  third  part  of  this  work,  whether  the 
principles  of  Robert  Hall  on  this  subject,  or  our  own,  are 
the  more  consistent  with  reason,  charity,  and  Scripture. 

We  have  seen  the  importance  of  the  distinction  between 


THE    FUNDAMENTAL   DISTINCTION.  131 

Communion  and  its  symbols.  The  one  is  purely  spiritual, 
the  other,  visible.  They  are  therefore  easily  distinguish- 
able ;  moreover,  the  absence  of  a  particular  symbol  is  no 
proof  of  a  refusal  to  commune  with  any  Christian.  This 
we  never  refuse  knowingly,  but,  on  the  contrary,  have  a 
sincere  and  cordial  fellowship,  as  Christians,  with  all  whom 
we  consider  such.  A  closer  fellowship  with  Christians  as 
Christians,  is  one  of  the  great  religious  wants  of  the  pre- 
sent age — a  fellowship,  not  interfering  in  any  way  with 
their  Church  relations,  but  loving,  encouraging,  and  doing 
good  to  all. 

2.  We  have  seen  that  Communion  is  of  different  hinds, 
and  degrees,  according  to  its  objects.  There  is  for  exam- 
ple, a  true  spiritual  Communion  with  Christ,  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  which  is  the  animating  principle  of  all  the 
rest;  and  there  is  also  a  true  Communion,  though  not  of 
the  same  character,  with  the  Universal  Church,  "the 
whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth.''  Even  in  regard 
to  this  illustrious  body,  our  fellowship  is  not  equally  close 
with  all  the  portions  and  members  of  it.  With  saints  in 
heaven,  it  is  more  exalted,  but  cannot  be  so  sympathizing 
on  our  part,  as  with  the  saints  on  earth.  And  even  in 
regard  to  these  latter,  there  is  particularly  to  be  noticed, 
the  distinction  between  our  fellowship  with  Christians  as 
such  and  apart  from  their  being  members  of  our  own,  or 
even  of  any  visible  Church ;  and  our  Communion  with 
those  with  whom  we  are  united  in  these  latter  relations. 
This  distinctness  of  Church  fellowship,  from  that  which 
we  hold  with  all  Christians,  is  analogous  to  the  difference 
between  the  regard  of  every  man  for  his  own  family,  and 
that  which  he  has  for  his  country,  his  neighbors,  and  his 
friends.  The  latter  may  be  said  to  have  its  foundation 
in  that  common  love  for  society,  which  makes  man  a  social 


132  COMMUNION. 

being.  Witliout  it^  lie  might  dwell  like  the  spider,  which 
sits,  the  solitary  tenant  of  a  web,  constructed  for  nothing 
but  to  catch  prey.  We  know,  however,  that  the  affection 
a  man  has,  and  the  relations  he  sustains  to  his  own  family, 
are  quite  distinct  from  any  that  he  bears  to  others.  So 
the  obligations  and  fellowship  belonging  to  membership 
in  a  Christian  Church,  as  such,  is,  in  several  important 
respects,  quite  distinct  from  that  due  to  a  Christian  as  a 
Christian.  To  lose  sight  of  this  distinction,  must  produce 
the  same  mischievous  effects  upon  the  cause  of  Christ, 
that  losing  sight  of  the  peculiar  sanctity  and  distinctness 
of  family  affection  would  have  upon  society.  As  the  latter 
would  be  far  from  promoting  social  happiness,  so  the 
former  would  not  sensibly  increase,  even  for  a  time,  the 
more  general  affection  of  Christians  as  a  whole,  while  in 
cutting  at  the  root  of  the  more  special  fellowship  of  the 
members  of  each  particular  Church,  it  would  destroy  the 
germ  of  both  the  one  and  the  other.  As  the  welfare  and 
happiness  of  society  depend  more  upon  the  proper  main- 
tenance of  the  family  tie,  than  any  of  the  more  general 
attachments  which  bind  men  together,  whether  as  commu- 
nities, as  tribes,  or  as  nations;  and  as  the  former  are  the 
basis  and  nursery  of  all  true  social  regard ;  so  the  foster- 
ing of  a  proper  Communion  with  the  particular  Church, 
with  which  by  grace  a  Christian  is  united,  is  his  first 
great  duty  and  privilege.  It  is  the  germ  of  all  the  more  ex- 
tensive affections  of  the  Christian  to  his  fellow-believers 
in  Christ ;  and  is  more  important  than  them  all. 

3.  As  there  are  different  kinds,  so  there  are  different 
symbols  of  Communion.  Whatever  action  or  emblem  is 
intended  to  denote  any  kind  of  Communion,  is  its  symbol. 
Some  of  these  symbols  are  simple  in  their  nature,  indi- 
cating but  one  kind  of  fellowship ;  others,  complex,  indi- 


THREE    CLASSES    OF    SYMBOLS.  133 

eating  more  than  one.  Complex  symbols  are  appropriate, 
only  when  all  the  relations  they  express,  exist  as  indicated. 
Thus,  for  instance,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  symbol  of 
our  Communion  with  Christ.  It  also  indicates  certain 
relations,  as  existing  between  those  with  whom  we  parti- 
cipate in  it,  and  ourselves.  The  Lord's  Supper,  therefore, 
can  be  properly  celebrated,  only  when  the  relations  both 
between  the  Saviour  and  us,  and  also  between  our  fellow- 
communicants  and  ourselves,  are  such  as  indicated  by  the 
symbol. 

•  4.  The  symbols  of  Communion  may  be  arranged  under 
three  heads.  (1.)  With  Christ.  (2.)  With  Christians  as 
such.  (8.)  With  the  particular  Church  to  which  we  be- 
long. These  three  classes  of  symbols  will  correspond  with 
the  different  kinds  of  Communion  pointed  out  before. 

5.  (1.)  As  to  the  first  of  these,  the  symbols  of  our 
Communion  with  Christ,  there  are  two,  special  and  divinely 
appointed,  (a)  Baptism,  (6)  The  Lord's  Supper.  Of  these, 
baptism,  which  is  divinely  termed  '•^ ])utting  on  Christ/* 
naturally  comes  first.  It  is  to  be  received  once,  and  but 
once.  It  is  that  symbolic  garment  of  confession,  by  which 
the  believer  in  Christ  not  only  professes  the  grace  which 
has  been  bestowed  upon  him,  but  also  dedicates  himself 
for  the  future  to  be  the  Lord's,  and  rightly  receiving  it, 
obtains  in  return  a  public  assurance  of  acceptance  with 
Christ.  It  is  not  a  mere  ceremony  therefore,  but  a 
divinely  appointed  public  consecration  of  the  Christian  to 
the  service  of  Christ,  which  causes  those  who  rightly  re- 
ceive it,  to  stand  in  a  new  relation  to  the  world,  to  Chris- 
tians, and  to  Christ,  and  of  which,  all  those  who  omit  it 
are  living  in  the  neglect. 

The  Lord's  Supper,  which  is  the  other  special  and 
divinely  appointed  symbol  of  our  Communion  with  Christ, 
12 


134  CO  MxM  UNION. 

is  to  be  repeated  "  often/'  Every  time  this  is  done,  it 
re-affirms  the  same  profession  as  to  the  past,  and  conse- 
cration of  himself  for  the  future,  which  the  Christian 
made  in  his  Baptism.  It  is  like  a  new  public  acknow- 
ledgment or  delivery  of  an  old  bond  or  deed.  There  is 
an  instituted  connection  between  them.  They  are  as  uni- 
formly mentioned  in  this  order  of  sequence,  as  regularly 
as  are  the  bread  and  the  wine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  An 
alteration  here  would  be  like  inverting  the  order  of  the 
elements  in  the  Eucharist.  To  admit  to  the  Supper 
without  Baptism  is  a  wrong  similar  to  that  for  which  we  all 
reproach  the  Roman  Catholics,  administering  one  of  the 
elements  without  the  other.* 

6.  As  to  the  second  class  of  symbols,  i.  e.  that  of  the 
fellowship  of  Christians,  as  such,  and  apart  from  their 
belonging  to  any  visible  Church  on  earth,  we  have  seen 
that  these  are  many  and  various.  Uniting  in  prayer,  in 
worship,  in  efforts  to  spread  the  cause  of  Christ,  or  in  the 
contributions  of  Christian  charity.  With  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  is  intended,  first  of  all,  to  symbolize  our 
Communion  with  the  Saviour,  and  participation  in  the 
fruits  of  his  death,  and  in  the  holiness  which  he  bestows. 
But  next  to  that,  it  expresses,  in  regard  to  those  with 
whom  we  partake  of  it,  more  than  a  mere  Christian,  a 
Church  fellowship.  Indeed  the  latter  is  implied,  chiefly 
as  the  more  general  is  necessarily  indicated  in  the  more 
specific  communion. 

7.  That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  a  mere  symbol  of  our 
Communion  with  the  Church  Universal,  is  plain.  For  as 
that  body  embraces  the  saints  in  glory,  it  would  then  be 

*  On  the  instituted  connection  between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
see  Fuller's  Works,  vol.  2,  p.  671-2.  Gould,  Kendall  &  Lincoln,  Boston, 
1836;  or  vol.  3,  p.  510,  Am.  Bap.  Publication  Society,  Philadelphia. 


THE    EUCHARIST    A    SPECIFIC    SYMBOL.  135 

appropriate,  and  even  a  duty  to  have  seasons  of  holding 
this  kind  of  symbolic  communion  with  those  of  our  Chris- 
tian friends  who  have  passed  into  the  world  of  spirits. 
This  was  an  error,  which,  originating  quite  early  in  the 
history  of  Christianity,  from  confounding  visible  Churches 
with  the  Invisible  Church,  led  naturally,  if  not  inevitably, 
to  the  Romish  corruption  of  masses  for  the  dead. 

Nor  is  it  a  mere  symbol  of  our  Communion  with  all 
saints  on  earth,  as  such.  If  it  were,  we  should  have  no 
right  to  refuse  the  Communion  to  any  man,  claiming  to 
be  a  Christian,  unless  we  could  prove  on  him  some  error 
of  doctrine  or  practice,  that  would  make  it  impossible  he 
should  be  what  he  professed.  He  might  hold  and  teach 
sentiments,  the  general  tendency  of  .which  was  subversive 
of  the  whole  system  of  Christianity ;  Roman  Catholicism, 
Arianism,  or  Universalism ;  but  unless  we  were  prepared 
to  assert,  in  each  case,  that  these  errors  were  so  held  by 
that  individual,  as  to  be  absolutely  incompatible  with  his 
salvation,  we  should  be  obliged  to  welcome  him  to  this 
feast.  He  might  not  only  defend  principles  that  were 
erroneous,  but  act  up  to  them  in  a  manner  which  would 
be  most  perverting  to  the  order  of  the  Church,  and  de- 
structive to  the  spiritual  life  and  welfare  of  thousands  of 
souls;  but  unless  we  were  prepared  to  assert  that  the 
individual  could  not  be  a  sincere  man,  and  even  a  Chris- 
tian, we  must  receive  him  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist 
with  us.*  The  Apostle,  on  the  contrary,  exhorts  us  to 
^'  withdraw  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly." 
Indeed,  in  this  case,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  Christians, 
wherever  they  met  as  Christians,  to  unite  in  the  celebra- 

*  See  Thoughts  on  Open  Communion— Letter  to  Rev.  W.  Ward,  Sept. 
21,  1800.  Fuller's  Works,  vol.  2,  p.  667,  (vol.  3,  p.  503.  ed.  Am.  Baptist 
Publication  Society)  where  this  point  is  ably  stated. 


136  COMMUNION. 

tion  of  this  ordinance ;  not  merely  when  they  assembled 
in  their  Churches,  but  in  Missionary,  Bible  and  Tract 
Societies,  Evangelical  Alliances,  and  assemblies  of  every 
description.  Wherever  prayer  would  be  appropriate,  so 
would  be  the  Lord's  Supper.  Whoever  considers  the  reason 
which  has  led  all  such  societies  instinctively  to  avoid  even 
the  mention  of  uniting  in  the  Eucharist,  at  their  anniver- 
sary meetings,  will  perceive  that  it  originates  in  a  feeling, 
that  by  so  doing  they  would  be  assuming  the  peculiar 
prerogative  of  a  Church,  instead  of  acting  as  a  simple 
voluntary  society  of  Christians. 

8.  That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  symbol  of  Church  rela- 
tions, subsisting  between  those  who  unite  together  in  the 
participation  of  it,  which  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  our 
present  purpose  to  prove,  can  be  shown  in  many  ways. 
For  it  presupposes  that  watchfulness  and  discipline  of 
holy  affection,  by  which  improper  persons  are  kept  back 
from  the  number  of  the  communicants.  This,  all  will 
admit;  nor  can  any  deny,  that  to  the  Churches  of  Christ, 
as  such,  and  to  them  alone,  has  the  power  of  discipline 
been  confided.  Admission  to  the  Lord's  Table,  therefore, 
implies  admission  to  it  by  a  particular  Church,  and  this 
in  fact,  settles  the  question  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
Church  ordinance.  For  certainly  no  Church  in  primitive 
times  would  have  admitted  any  to  its  Communion  Table, 
whom  it  would  have  been  unwilling  to  receive  as  a  mem- 
ber of  its  own  body.  Each  Church  was  originally  inde- 
pendent, with  full  powers  within  itself,  to  receive  and  to 
exclude  from  its  communion  table. 

9.  The  Lord's  Supper  being  then  a  Church  ordinance, 
indicates  Church  relations  as  subsisting  between  the  par- 
ties who  unite  together  in  its  celebration.  Not  to  extend 
an  invitation  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  merely  shows  the  ab- 


THE    SUPPER  A  CUURCII   ORDINAKCE.  137 

sence  of  Church,  not  of  Christian  relations.  A  Jew, 
merely  because  he  was  a  Jew,  had  no  right  to  go  into  any 
house  he  pleased  to  celebrate  the  Passover  with  any  other 
family  than  his  own,  except  by  mutual  consent  and  invi- 
tation; nor  was  any  man  obliged  to  invite  every  Jew,  or 
any  person  out  of  his  own  family,  to  partake  with  him. 
Not  to  invite  any  one  out  of  the  family  to  the  Passover, 
therefore,  was  no  indication  that  he  was  not  regarded  as  a 
true  and  pious  Israelite;  because  that  was  a  family,  as 
this  is  a  Church  ordinance.  The  Lord's  Supper  was 
instituted  by  our  Saviour  at  one  of  these  Paschal  feasts 
with  the  twelve,  his  more  especial  family  of  disciples,  and 
no  other  around  him.  Each  Christian  Church  is  a  family 
of  such  disciples  now;  and  the  Lord's  Supper  was  so  insti- 
tuted as  to  express,  not  merely  the  Christian,  but  the 
Church  fellowship,  we  say,  of  those  who  united  in  it  at 
the  same  table.  If,  not  to  extend  this  invitation  to  others, 
is,  as  Robert  Hall  contends,  equivalent  to  excommuni- 
cating them,  and  a  proof  of  the  want  of  Christian  alFection 
and  fellowship  for  them ;  then  were  the  seventy  excom- 
municated, and  even  those  pious  women,  (including  his 
mother  Mary,)  who  had  come  up  with  him  to  the  feast, 
and  were 

"  Last  at  the  cross,  and  earliest  at  the  grave." 

The  records  of  Church  history  plainly  show,  that  origi- 
nally the  Lord's  Supper  was  everywhere  regarded  as  a 
Church  ordinance.  For  even  after  centuries  of  gradual 
corruption  had  altered  the  forms  of  Church  government 
in  many  other  respects,  and  many  separate  congregations 
were  united  under  the  care  of  one  Bishop,  and  were  con- 
sidered as  only  one  Church,  there  was  ever  one  and  but 
one  altar  to  each  bishopric,  at  which  alone  the  elements 
12* 


138  COMMUNION. 

of  the  Eucharist  were  consecrated.  To  set  up  another 
altar  or  Communion  Table,  was  considered  a  violation  of 
unity,  or  a  declaration  of  Church  independence.  Each 
bishopric  had  the  absolute  power  of  receiving  to,  and  ex- 
communicating from  the  Lord's  Table.  The  whole  of  this 
shows  how,  contrary  to  all  the  centralizing  tendencies  of 
the  age,  and  amid  many  corruptions  on  all  sides,  this 
truth  remained,  embalmed  and  preserved,  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  a  Church  ordinance. 

10.  Seeing  then  no  doubt  can  exist,  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  originally  thus  constituted,  the  only  question 
that  can  remain,  is,  if  there  be  in  the  Churches  or  in 
Christians  any  power  to  employ  the  ordinance  for  other 
purposes  beside  those  originally  intended;  such  for  instance, 
as  expressing  a  simply  Christian  fellowship,  and  omitting 
the  more  special  one,  which  belonged  to  it  originally. 
This  however  can  only  be  done  by  the  parties  presuming 
to  alter  what  God  has  appointed,  and  assuming  a  legisla- 
tive authority  equal  to  that  of  the  Divine  Head  of  the 
Christian  Church,  superior  to  that  claimed  even  by  Rome 
herself. 

But  if  it  be  conceded,  as  it  must,  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  ever  the  symbol  of  particular  visible  Church  relations, 
then  it  is  impossible  that  Baptists  should  be  rightly 
charged  with  bigotry,  or  want  of  charity.  There  is  no 
unjust  closeness  of  Communion  in  not  inviting  those  who, 
as  not  having  in  our  view  a  valid  baptism,  could  not  ac- 
cording to  our  principles  be  received  into  the  membership 
of  any  of  our  Churches,  and  whose  own  standards  would 
forbid  them  to  enter  into  Church  relations  with  us.  Much 
more  justly  might  the  charge  be  brought  against  those 
who  refuse  to  admit  more  than  half  their  own  members 
to  the  Lord's  Supper;  who,  contrary  to  all  the  antiquity 


ROBERT    hall's    SINGULAR    POSITION.  139 

to  which  they  appeal,  jfirst  receive  infants  into  their  mem- 
bership by  baptism,  and  then  withhold  that  token  which 
belongs  to  them  as  members.  Baptists  have  no  such  close 
communion  as  this. 

11.  A  formidable  objection  has  however  been  brought, 
not  indeed  against  Baptists  alone,  but  against  all  Christian 
denominations,  in  respect  to  their  views  of  Church  mem- 
bership. The  objection  is,  that  no  visible  Church  of  Christ 
has  a  right  to  make  any  other  terms  of  admission  to  its 
full  membership,  than  such  as  are  requisite  to  belong  to 
the  Universal  or  Invisible  Church.  This  is  what  Robert 
Hall  calls  his  ^'  leading  position,^'  i.  e.,  "  that  no  Church 
has  a  right  to  establish  terms  of  Communion  which  are  not 
terms  of  salvation;  and  that  properly,  a  particular  Church 
differs  from  the  Universal  Church,  only  as  a  part  differs 
from  the  whole. '^ 

If  this  were  true,  it  would  effectually  destroy  the  Bap- 
tists as  a  denomination,  This  Eobert  Hall  expressly 
concedes.  ^'Were  that  practice  universally  to  prevail,'^ 
says  he,  "  the  mixture  of  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  in 
Christian  societies  would  probably  ere  long  be  such,  that 
the  appellation  Baptist  might  be  found  not  so  properly 
applicable  to  Churches,  as  to  individuals.'^  It  would  be 
not  less  destructive  of  all  other  denominations  than  of  our 
own.  It  is  as  much  opposed  to  the  Methodist  Book  of 
Discipline,  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  as  it  is  to  our  own  views  of  Church 
membership.  The  experience  of  the  whole  Christian 
world  of  all  ages  is  against  it. 

12.  This  "  leading  position,''  however,  is  founded  on 
the  palpable  error  of  confounding  the  nature  of  Visible 
Churches  with  that  of  the  Invisible  Church.  It  is  demon- 
strable that  these  two  must  be  different.  For  it  is  admitted 


140  COMMUNION. 

by  all  who  hold  these  views,  that  true  faith  in  Christ  alone 
is  necessary  to  a  state  of  salvation,  or  membership  in  the 
Invisible  Church.  This  may  and  does  include  a  willing- 
ness of  heart  to  confess  Christ,  but  it  cannot  necessarily 
include  the  act  of  confessing  him  in  any  way  before  men. 
But  some  hind  of  credible  and  visible  confession  of  Christ, 
or  profession  of  piety  to  man,  must  be  a  prerequisite  to 
visible  Church  membership.  Consequently,  that  must  be 
essential  to  the  latter,  which  is  not  to  the  former.  So  far 
therefore  from  this  position  being  true,  that  no  Church 
has  a  right  to  establish  terms  of  Communion  which  are 
not  terms  of  salvation,  the  truth  must  be  exactly  the 
reverse.  No  visible  Church  can  possibly  establish  itself, 
even  for  a  day,  without  terms  of  membership  that  include 
things  not  essential  to  salvation.  Instead  of  this  being 
the  case,  that  a  particular  Church  differs  from  the  invisible 
"  07ily^'  as  a  part  differs  from  the  whole,  nothing  is  more 
certain,  than  that  they  must  and  do,  and  were  designed  to 
differ  essentially  in  other  respects  besides. 

Each  visible  Church  must  adopt  such  terms  of  member- 
ship, as  seem  to  it  most  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
and  precepts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  practice  of 
the  first  Christians.*  That  our  plan  of  Church  member- 
ship, admitting  only  those  whom  we  consider  baptized, 
was  the  primitive  plan,  is  conceded  by  Robert  Hall  him- 
self: who  admits  that  any  one  offering  himself  without 
baptism,  would  have  been  "  repelled  as  a  contumacious 
schismatic. ''f  All  other  denominations  hold  this  as  much 
as  we.  This  is  shown  by  the  writings  of  their  standard 
authors. 

13.  The  only  point,  therefore,  in  which  we  can  ever  be 

*  Presbyterian  Form  of  Government,  Book  1,  chap.  I. 
t  Terms  of  Communion,  Part  1,  sect.  3. 


OCCASIONAL   PARTICIPATION.  141 

supposed  to  differ  from  other  denominations,  is  upon  the 
subject  of  OCCASIONAL  communion;  or  the  admission  of 
those  who  are  either  members  of  no  Church,  or  of  other 
Churches,  to  the  participation  with  us,  in  the  sacramental 
elements,  when  present  in  our  assemblies.  This  we  grant 
cheerfully,  so  far  as  the  members  of  other  Churches,  simi- 
larhj  constituted  uith  our  own,  are  concerned ;  because  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  Church  ordinance,  and  we  are  willing 
to  consider  those,  who,  but  for  local  circumstances  might 
be  members  of  our  particular  Churches,  for  the  time  being 
as  actually  such.  Thus  far,  all  are  agreed.  With  regard 
to  persons,  however  sincere  their  piety,  who  are  members 
of  no  Church,  we,  in  common  with  all  other  denomina- 
tions, have  no  hesitation  in  declaring  that  they  should  not 
be  admitted  to  the  occasional  participation  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  "With  us,  this  also  is  founded  on  the  principle, 
that  this  is  a  Church  ordinance. 

14.  But  now  in  regard  to  members  of  the  Churches  of 
other  denominations.  Many  do  invite  those  to  occasional 
participation,  who  are  not  members  of  Churches  of  a  similar 
constitution  to  their  own ;  and  who  could  not  unite  with 
them  in  a  regular  and  permanent  Church  fellowship; 
their  views  of  its  order,  doctrines,  and  government  being 
so  diff'erent.  In  this  way,  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  and 
even  Episcopalians  will  thus  occasionally  partake  together. 
It  is  true  that  no  denomination  would  be  willing  to  carry 
this  so  far,  as  to  admit  any  persons  they  consider  unbap- 
tized,  even  to  occasional  Communion. 

But  if  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  Church  ordinance,  and 
indicates  a  Church  fellowship  among  all  those  who  par- 
take together,  it  is  a  violation  of  truth  in  symbols  to 
invite  to  occasional  Communion,  those  whom  our  consti- 
tutional principles  would  forbid  to  be  members  of  our 


142  COMMUNION. 

Churches.  Indeed  there  is  a  palpable  inconsistency  in 
adopting  one  set  of  principles  for  admission  to  Church  fel- 
lowship, and  another  to  occasional  Communion;  one  for 
admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper  considered  in  the  former 
point  of  view,  another  for  it,  considered  in  the  latter. 
Such  discriminations  cannot  produce  real  unity  and  fel- 
lowship }  a  sophism  lies  at  the  bottom  of  them. 

As  it  is  taken  for  granted  in  this  discussion,  that  Chris- 
tian baptism  essentially  involves  an  immersion  of  the  body 
in  water,  as  a  profession  of  personal  faith  in  Christ,  so  it 
follows  that  this  whole  discussion  must  be  founded  on  the 
acknowledgment  that  our  Pedobaptist  friends  are  without 
valid  baptism.  Nor  can  it  make  any  abatement  from  this 
conclusion,  or  any  alteration  in  regard  to  our  receiving 
them  at  the  Lord's  Table,  that  they  do  not  perceive  this. 
For  Baptists  to  admit  the  validity  of  baptism  to  depend, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  not  upon  the  New  Testament,  but 
upon  what  each  one  chooses  for  himself  to  consider  bap- 
tism, would  destroy  our  principles  at  once. 

15.  It  has  sometimes  been  objected,  however,  that  it  is 
only  the  mode  of  baptism  that  prevents  us  from  uniting 
with  others  at  the  Lord's  Table.  This  is  an  error.  It  is 
not  only,  nor  even  chiefly  the  mode.  For  the  baptisms  of 
the  Greek  Church,  which  are  performed  in  the  same  man- 
ner, are  not  regarded  by  us  as  valid,  because  not  profes- 
sions of  personal  faith ;  nor  could  we  invite  the  members 
of  that  body  to  partake  with  us. 

16.  It  is  urged  however,  that  at  least  the  difference  be- 
tween us  and  pious  Pedobaptists  is  merely  ceremonial, 
and  that  it  is  merely  because  we  do  not  esteem  their  bap- 
tism valid,  that  we  do  not  unite  with  them  at  the  Lord's 
Table.  It  is  unquestionably  true  that  we  do  not  admit 
the  validity  of  their  baptism,  and  that  this  is  the  chief 


HOW    FAR   WE  ARE    SEPARATPCD.  143 

point  of  difference  between  our  Churches  and  some  others, 
as  for  instance  those  of  the  Congregationalists,  with  whom, 
as  to  doctrine  and  form  of  government,  we  agree.  But  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  as  much 
a  mere  ceremony  as  baptism.  It  is  just  as  little  a  matter, 
to  debar  from  the  former,  as  to  refuse  the  latter.  The  two 
must  go  together.  Consistency  requires  Ceremonial  Com- 
munion with  those  only  with  whom  we  ceremonially  agree ; 
Spiritual  Communion  with  those  with  whom  we  are 
spiritually  united.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  origi- 
nally these  Churches  with  whom  we  most  nearly  coincide, 
thrust  us  out,  and  made  us  a  separate  denomination.  If 
there  were  any  schism  therefore  in  the  separation,  it  is 
theirs,  not  ours. 

But  while  between  our  Churches  and  some  others,  bap- 
tism is  nearly  the  only  point  of  difference;  there  are 
principles  as  distinctive,  connected  with  our  views  of  this 
one  ordinance  of  baptism,  as  those  which  form  the  basis  of 
any  other  denomination.  Dr.  Bushnell,  in  his  works  on 
Christian  Nurture,  if  he  has  shown  nothing  else,  has  shown 
this. 

But  while  there  is  so  little  difference  between  us  and 
the  Congregationalists,  it  is  not  so  with  the  most.  Differ- 
ences in  doctrine,  and  in  the  whole  system  of  Church 
government;  differences  in  the  terms  of  admission  to  the 
full  privileges  of  Church  membership ;  besides  those  as  to 
the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  separate  us  from  most 
others.  Nor  is  it  accurate  to  say  that  it  is  either  baptism 
alone,  or  any  single  thing  that  is  the  cause  of  our  practice 
in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  save  this  only ;  that  we 
regard  it  as  a  Church  ordinance,  the  symbol  of  Church 
relations,  and  consequently  to  be  united  in  by  those  only 
who  agree  as  to  Church  relations.     Otherwise,  we  should 


144  #  COMMUNION. 

not  only  be  required  to  invite  all  whom  we  were  not  pre- 
pared to  declare  beyond  the  pale  of  Church  fellowship,  to 
partake  with  us,  but  we  must  participate  with  all  bodies 
claiming  to  be  Christian  Churches,  on  their  invitation, 
whatever  may  be  the  state  of  their  doctrine  or  discipline, 
unless  we  intended  to  denounce  them  as  having  so  apos- 
tatized, as  not  to  deserve  that  appellation. 

17.  It  has  frequently  been  urged  that  by  our  course,  we 
at  least  unchurch  all  other  denominations.  But  this  again 
is  a  complete  error.  It  certainly  does  not  follow  from  our 
practice  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  For  we  do  not 
pretend  to  commune  with  all  whom  we  esteem  Christians, 
nor  with  all  that  we  consider  Christian  Churches ;  only 
with  such  as  are  similarly  constituted  with  our  own.  While 
we  know  that  baptism  was  originally,  and  now  is,  essential 
to  the  regular  constitution  of  a  Christian  Church,  and 
therefore  we  have  no  right  to  dispense  with  it  from  our 
own,  yet  as  the  term  Church  (sxx^yjaia)  is  often  used,  even 
in  Scripture,  for  assemblies  irregularly  formed,  so  any  orga- 
nized body  of  professing  Christians,  assembling  from  time 
to  time  for  worship,  may  be  justly  considered  a  Christian 
Church,  though,  if  it  be  without  valid  baptism,  an  irregular 
Church. 

18.  Our  Churches  are  formed  upon  the  primitive  model. 
In  our  mode  of  celebrating  both  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  we  feel  sure  that  we  conform  to  primitive  usage. 
In  the  relative  order,  and  relation  in  which  they  stand  to 
each  other,  we  do  the  same,  even  by  the  concession  of  our 
opponents.  Thus  did  the  Apostles,  and  thus  do  we.  We 
find  fault  with  none.  We  excommunicate  none.  We  are 
saved  from  all  this  by  .our  views  of  Church  independence, 
and  by  not  professing  visible  Church  relations  where  they 
do  not  exist.     We  respect  the  rights  of  others  too  much 


OUR  AIMS  JUST  AND  CHARITABLE.     145 

to  interfere  with  their  ecclesiastical  arrangements.  But 
our  regard  for  truth  and  harmony  forbids  us  to  carry  union 
in  profession  further  than  any  would  be  willing  to  carry 
it  in  practice.  We  aim  simply  to  keep  the  ordinances  as 
they  were  delivered  unto  us,  without  unchurching  any,  or 
denying  their  Christianity.  Nor  would  we  see  ceremonial 
and  spiritual  Communions  so  confounded,  that  by  not  in- 
viting persons  to  partake  with  us  at  the  Lord's  Table,  we 
should  be  supposed  to  express  any  want  of  fellowship  with 
them  as  Christians.  We  only  feel  that  where  any  symbol 
is  complex,  and  indicates  several  different  relations,  all  of 
them  must  exist  in  truth  as  indicated  by  the  symbol  to 
render  its  use  appropriate. 


13 


PART  III. 

THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  ROBERT  HALL  CONSIDERED. 


INTKODUCTORY  KEMARKS. 

CLASSIFICATION   OF   ROBERT   HALL's   WRITINGS   ON   THE 
SUBJECT   OF   COMMUNION. 

Although  in  the  former  part  of  this  treatise,  we  have 
stated  the  principle  on  which  Mixed  Communion  was  so 
ably  advocated  by  the  late  Robert  Hall,  the  arguments  by 
which  he  has  attempted  to  sustain  that  principle,  deserve 
a  separate  and  special  notice.  His  writings  on  this  sub- 
ject, were  comprised  in  three  tracts  :  1.  ^'  Terms  of  Com- 
munion :''  afterwards  abridged  and  called  "  Reasons  for 
Christian  in  opposition  to  Party  Communion,^'  by  the 
Author.  2.  ^' The  Essential  Difference  between  Christian 
Baptism,  and  the  Baptism  of  John.^^  3.  "  A  Reply  to 
the  Rev.  Joseph  Kinghorn,  being  a  further  vindication  of 
the  plan  of  Free  Communion.'^  It  is  chiefly  in  the  fii'st 
of  these  works,  that  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  author's 
views  are  contained;  the  other  two  being  rejoinders  to 
the  replies  of  his  opponents.  It  will  only  be  necessary  to 
take  so  much  notice  of  these  latter,  as  that  when  an  ob- 
jection similar  to  any  which  Mr.  Hall  has  noticed  in  his 
rejoinder  is  brought  against  the  reasoning  contained  in 
the  Terms  of  Communion,  his  further  explanation,  or  vin- 
dication, shall  be  presented  to  the  reader,  and  fairly  con- 
sidered. This  will  in  each  case  be  done.  As  that  re- 
markable man  has  confessedly  advanced  all  that  is  to  be 
said  on  that  side  of  the  question,  it  will  be  a  thorough  and 
final  proof  of  the  truth  of  our  positions,  if  they  are  capable 


150  COMMUNION. 

of  resisting  the  attacks  of  this  ablest  advocate  of  Mixed 
Communion;  while  it  will  also  enable  those  desirous  of 
comparing  opinions  on  this  subject,  to  have  the  arguments 
of  both  parties  placed  side  by  side,  and  the  whole  subject 
thus  brought  in  review  before  them. 

The  work,  entitled  ''Terms  of  Communion/'  consists  of 
two  parts, — Part  I.  ''  The  Arguments  for  Strict  Commu- 
nion considered/' — Part  II.  ''  The  Positive  Grounds  on 
which  we  justify  the  practice  of  Mixed  Communion. '^ 

The  First  Part,  divided  into  four  sections,  considers  1st. 
"  The  Argument  from  the  Order  .of  Time  in  which  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  supposed  to  have  been 
instituted ;"  2d.  ''  The  Argument  for  Strict  Communion, 
from  the  Order  of  Words  in  the  Apostolic  Commission  ;'^ 
3d.  ''  The  Argument  from  Apostolic  Precedent,  and  from 
the  different  Significations  of  the  two  Institutions  ;'^  4th. 
''  Our  supposed  Opposition  to  the  Universal  Suffrages  of 
the  Church.'^ 

As  it  will  be  at  once  evident  that,  in  the  first  Part,  no 
attempt  is  made  to  establish  any  positive  argument,  in 
favor  of  Mixed  Communion,  but  only  to  remove  difficul- 
ties, and  reply  to  objections;  and  as  none  of  the  argu- 
ments there  considered,  lead  to  the  discussion  of  what  we 
consider  the  radical  fallacy  of  Mr.  Hall's  views,  i.  e., 
confounding  Communion  with  the  symbols  of  Communion, 
and  Church  fellowship  with  Christian  fellowship;  as  they 
do  not  lead  him  to  touch  the  principle  that  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  all  we  advance,  i.  e.,  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
symbolizes  relations  subsisting  only  between  the  members 
of  a  particular  Church,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  consider 
here  the  ''  plea  in  abatement,"  offered  under  each  of  the 
four  heads  above  specified.  What  is  said  by  our  Author 
in  regard  to  "the  Universal  Suffrages'^  of  Christians,  has 


ROBERT    hall's    SIX    AR(JUMENTS.  151 

been  noticed  incidentally  in  our  Second  Part^  where  that 
subject  was  considered. 

In  Part  XL,  Mr.  Hall  advances  to  what  he  terms  "  The 
Positive  Grounds  on  which  ice  justify  the  Practice  of  Mixed 
Communion."  Here  he  presents  us  with  six  distinct 
arguments,  in  as  many  sections.     They  are  as  follows :  - 

1.  Free  Communion  urged  from  the  Obligation  of  Bro- 
therly Love. 

2.  The  Practice  of  Open  Communion  argued  from  the 
express  Injunction  of  Scripture,  respecting  the  Conduct  to 
be  maintained  by  sincere  Christians,  who  differ  in  their 
Religious  Sentiments. 

3.  Pedobaptists,  a  part  of  the  true  Church,  and  their 
Exclusion  on  that  ac-count  unlawful. 

4.  The  Exclusion  of  Pedobaptists  from  the  Lord's 
Table,  considered  as  a  Punishment. 

5.  On  the  Impossibility  of  reducing  the  Practice  of 
Strict  Communion  to  any  general  principle. 

6.  The  Impolicy  of  the  Practice  of  Strict  Communion. 

We  will  consider  the  force  of  each  one  of  these  Argu- 
ments, in  the  same  order  in  which  our  Author  has  advanced 
them. 


CHAPTER   I. 

ROBERT    hall's    FIRST    ARGUMENT    CONSIDERED. 

1.  Ambiguity  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  Communion.  2.  Applied  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  proves  nothing.  3.  Robert  Hall's  view  of  the  signifi- 
cation of  the  Lord's  Supper  considered.  4.  His  illustration  of  chil- 
dren refusing  to  eat  at  the  same  table.  5.  Symbolic  feasts.  6.  The 
anguish  of  separating  from  Christian  friends  at  the  Lord's  Supper 
considered.     7.  Illustration. 

1.  The  first  consideration  of  our  Author  is  thus  enti- 
tled :  ^'  Free  Comnnmion  urged  from  the  Ohligation  of 
Brotlierly  LoveJ' 

There  is  not  only  in  this  title,  but  running  through  the 
whole  argument  of  this  section,  and  indeed  of  the  whole 
work,  an  ambiguity,  arising  from  the  different  senses  in 
which  the  word  Communion  is  employed.  To  this  we 
have  before  alluded.  Sometimes  Mr.  Hall  uses  this  term 
as  equivalent  to  {christian  fellowship,  sometimes  for  Church 
fellowship,  habitually  sustained,  and  sometimes  for  that 
symbol  of  Church  fellowship  "  the  Lord's  Supper.'' 
However  our  Author  might  consider  each  of  these  as  uni- 
formly proper,  where  any  of  them  was,  yet  in  arguing  on 
this  very  question,  he  had  no  right  so  to  use  them,  as  to 
take  for  granted  the  very  point  in  dispute. 

Using  the  term  in  the  first  of  the  above  senses,  we  should 
fully  agree  with  him,  that  it  was  our  duty  to  cherish  a 
warm  Christian  Communion  with  all  whom  we  esteem 
Christians,  Roman  Catholic  or  Protestant,  Baptist  or 
Pedobaptist.  Thus  far  the  passages  he  has  quoted  on  the 
duty  of  loving  one  another  bear  him  out,  and  no  further. 


A   PETITIO    PRINCirn.  153 

But  if  by  "  Communion/^  he  intends  Church  fellowship, 
(See  Part  I.,  eh.  4,)  and  from  the  obligation  of  brotherly 
love,  would  urge  that  it  is  our  duty  to  maintain  habitually 
this  particular  fellowship  for  all  whom  we  esteem  Chris- 
tians, then  must  all  the  family  feeling  of  Church  member- 
ship be  broken  down.  (See  p.  35.)  For  any  general  ex- 
hortations of  Scripture  however,  to  Christian  and  brotherly 
love,  to  be  brought  in  proof  of  this,  it  must  be  taken  for 
granted  that  the  terms  of  visible  membership  in  a  parti- 
cular Church,  ought  exactly  to  correspond  to  those  of 
membership  in  the  invisible  Church  Universal.  This  Mr. 
Hall  does  take  for  granted  throughout  his  whole  work. 
But  this  is  just  the  point  in  dispute.  In  Part  I.,  ch.  4,  we 
have  shown  the  distinction  between  these  two,  and  there, 
more  particularly  alluded  to  this  ?>mgv\^Y  petitio  principii. 
2.  In  the  latter  part  of  this  section,  at  least,  it  is  clear 
that  our  Author  distinctly  intends  by  ^'Communion," 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  here 
that  he  concentrates  his  argument.  "  In  order  to  place 
this  part  of  our  subject  in  its  strongest  light,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  recur  to  what  we  have  suggested  before,  respecting 
the  twofold  import  of  the  Eucharist,  that  it  is  first  a  feast 
upon  a  sacrifice,  in  which  we  are  actual  partakers,  by  faith, 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer  off"ered  upon  the 
cross.  Considered  in  this  view,  it  is  a  federal  rite,  in 
which  we  receive  the  pledge  of  reconciliation,  while  we 
avouch  the  Lord  to  be  our  God,  and  surround  his  table  as 
a  part  of  his  family.  In  its  secondary  import,  it  is  in- 
tended as  a  solemn  recognition  of  each  other  as  members  of 
Christ,  and  consequently,  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  '  as 
one  body  and  one  bread.'*     Now  we  either  acknowledge 

*  For  another  view  of  the  passage  above  qixoted,  see  Appendix  G. 


154  COxMMUNION. 

Pedobaptists  to  he  ChrlstianSj  or  we  do  not.  If  not,  let 
us  speak  out  without  reserve,  and  justify  their  exclusion 
at  once,  upon  a  broad  and  consistent  basis.  But  if  we 
reject  a  sentiment  so  illiberal,  why  refuse  to  unite  with 
them  in  an  appointment  which,  as  far  as  its  social  import 
is  concerned,  has  no  other  ohject  than  to  express  that  fra- 
ternal attachment,  which  loe  actually  feeV^ 

When  any  symbolic  act  necessarily  embraces  a  reference 
to  two  or  more  distinct  relations,  as  we  have  seen  in  a 
former  Part,  all  the  relations  must  exist  as  indicated,  to 
render  the  sign  proper.  Thus,  for  instance,  it  is  true  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  first  of  all  a  symbol  of  our  participa- 
tion in  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ.  But  this  will 
not,  upon  our  Author's  ground,  justify  a  Christian  in  cele- 
brating this  feast,  in  connection  with  those  who  make  no 
profession  of  faith  in  Christ;  because,  according  to  him,  the 
Lord's  Supper  symbolizes  not  only  our  union  with  Christ, 
but  is  also  '^  a  solemn  recognition  of  each  other  as  mem- 
bers of  Christ.'^     Thus  far,  our  Author  will  admit. 

3.  It  is  in  regard  to  his  ^^  secondary  import' '  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  that  we  desire  to  remark ;  for  here  in  truth 
the  whole  controversy  turns.  If  indeed  it  is,  as  between 
the  parties  celebrating  it,  "  a  solemn  recognition  of  each 
other  as  members  of  Christ,'^  and  nothing  more ;  if  "so  far 
as  its  social  import  is  concerned,  it  has  no  other  ohject  than 
to  express  that  fraternal  afi"ection"  which  subsists  between 
all  true  Christians,  then  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  all 
who  recognize  each  other  as  members  of  Christ,  ought  to 
be  willing  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  together. 

But  in  all  this  assumption,  the  author  is  begging  the 
very  point  at  issue.     We  contend  that  the  Lord's  Supper 

*  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  324. 


A    MISCONCEPTION    OF    RELATIONS.  155 

has  other  objects,  than  to  express  that  fraternal  attachment 
which  we  feel  to  all  Christians  as  members  of  Christ.  In 
Part  II.,  ch.  4,  we  have  shown  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
not  merely  a  solemn  recognition  of  each  other  as  members 
of  Christ,  but  as  those  between  whom  and  ourselves,  particu- 
lar Church  relations  exist.  The  dilemma,  which  is  put 
before  us,  therefore,  with  such  an  air  of  triumph,  is  founded 
upon  an  utter  misconception,  as  we  believe,  of  some  of  the 
relations  indicated  by  the  Lord's  Supper.  ^^We  either 
acknowledge  Pedobaptists  to  he  Christians,  or  we  do  not," 
says  our  author.  ^'If  not,  let  us  speak  out  without  re- 
serve." We  really  do  not  see  why  we  should  be  called 
upon  to  pronounce  upon  this  question  here,  or  what  it  has 
to  do  with  the  point  in  dispute.  Pedobaptists  certainly  do 
not  acknowledge  Church  relations  with  us,  nor  do  we  with 
them.  Indeed,  one  would  think  that  these  relations,  to 
subsist  profitably  at  all,  should  be  mutual.  But  as  we 
have  no  wish  to  avoid  '^speaking  out  without  reserve,"  we 
frankly  take  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma,  and  acknow- 
ledge them,  many  of  them  at  least,  to  be  Christians,  per- 
haps better  than  ourselves.  But  what  then  ?  "  Then  why 
refuse  to  unite  with  them"  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Simply 
because  we  believe  that  the  Lord's  Supper,  if  united  in, 
would  symbolize  much  more,  than  that  we  consider  them 
^Christians.  It  would  symbolize  that  they  were  willing  to 
unite  in  Church  relations  with  us,  and  we  with  them ;  nei- 
ther of  which  is  true.  It  would  say  to  the  world  that  our 
views  of  Church  order  and  discipline,  and  ordinances,  and 
government,  were  mutually  so  much  alike,  that  we  could 
consistently  consider  ourselves  members  of  the  same 
Church.  This  is  a  principle  upon  which  neither  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren,  nor  we,  would  like  to  act,  and  which 
therefore  we   ought  not  to  express;  and  we  have  before 


156  COMMUNION. 

seen  that  where  a  symbolic  act  embraces  reference  to  two 
or  more  distinct  relations^  all  of  them  must  subsist  in  truth 
as  symbolized,  to  justify  the  use  of  the  sign. 

4.  As  an  illustration  is  often  remembered,  when  an 
argument  is  forgotten ;  and  as  we  wish  to  present  all  that 
our  author  would  advance  on  his  side  of  the  question,  we 
would  add  the  following  passage.  ^^Were  the  children  of 
the  same  parent,  in  consequence  of  the  different  construction 
they  had  put  on  a  disputed  clause  in  their  father's  will,  to 
refuse  to  eat  at  the  same  table,  or  to  drink  out  of  the  same 
cup,  it  would  be  ridiculous  for  them  to  pretend  that  their 
attachment  to  each  other  remained  undiminished;  nor  is 
it  less  so  for  Christians  to  assert  that  their  withdrawing 
from  communion  with  their  brethren,  is  no  interruption  to 
their  mutual  harmony  and  affection.' '* 

The  illustration  of  children  of  the  same  parent  refusing 
to  eat  at  the  same  table,  would  be  applicable,  if  the  Lord's 
JSiqyper  were  to  he  regarded  as  an  ordinarij  and  not  a  sym- 
bolic meal.  But  that  this  is  not  the  case  is  shown  by  the 
fact,  that  the  very  parties  who  decline  to  unite  in  it,  will 
join  as  freely  as  brothers  in  any  other  meal,  and  in  any 
other  token  of  Christian  regard.  If  then  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  a  symbolic  meal,  the  only  question  is,  of  what  is  it 
the  symbol?  If  of  Christian  fellowship  and  nothing  more, 
then  all  who  esteem  each  other  as  Christians  should  be 
willing  to  celebrate  together ;  and  were  they  to  refuse,  the 
consequences  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Hall  would  ensue,  and 
even  more.  But  if  the  Lord's  Supper  is  also  a  symbol  of 
Church  relations,  then  those  who  cannot  and  do  not  sus- 
tain these  relations  to  each  other,  cannot  consistently 
unite  in  the  symbol. 

*  Works,  vol.  l,p.  323. 


ILLUSTRATIONS.  157 

5.  It  is  quite  common  in  Europe,  and  in  this  country, 
for  political  dinners  to  be  given,  in  order  to  assemble  and 
unite  the  chief  members  of  a  particular  party,  and  promote 
its  objects.  To  unite  in  one  of  those  feasts,  would  pub- 
licly symbolize  that  those  who  partook,  were  all  agreed  as 
to  the  political  party  or  object,  to  promote  which  the  feast 
was  given.  So  on  the  other  hand,  to  decline  an  invitation 
of  this  kind,  would  not  be  a  refusal  to  meet  the  same  per- 
sons as  gentlemen  or  friends ;  it  would  not  indicate  any 
want  of  confidence  in  them  all  as  true  and  patriotic  citizens, 
supporters  of  the  same  national  liberties,  all  sworn  friends 
of  a  common  constitution,  but  simply  a  nonconcurrence  in 
all  the  measures  which  it  was  the  object  of  that  particular 
association  to  promote.  Brothers  often  refuse  to  partake 
of  these  symbolic  feasts  together,  without  the  least  diminu- 
tion of  fraternal  regard. 

6.  The  author  of  the  ^^  Terms  of  Communion'^  eloquently 
pictures  '^  the  uneasiness  and  anguish  felt  on  sacramental 
occasions,  by  good  men,  seeing  their  most  intimate  friends, 
and  persons  of  exalted  piety,  compelled  to  withdraw  from 
the  Lord's  Table. ^^  That  cases  do  occur,  in  which  such  feel- 
ings arise,  we  doubt  not.  But  this  is  either  from  forget- 
ting the  symbolic  character  of  the  institution  altogether, 
or  at  least  from  forgetting  it  to  be  the  symbol  of  Church 
relations,  or  of  anything  more  than  our  fellow-citizenship 
with  the  saints  in  light.  Upon  any  other  supposition,  the 
pain  could  only  be  occasioned  by  being  reminded  that  such 
excellent  Christians  had  not  yet  been  buried  with  Christ 
in  baptism.  But  that  not  keeping  distinctly  in  mind  the 
reference  of  any  symbolic  feast,  may  occasion  the  uneasi- 
ness and  even  anguish,  which  a  slight  attention  to  that 
circumstance  would  remove,  is  not  doubtful.  The  follow- 
ing anecdote  will  in  part  illustrate  what  we  wish  to  convey. 

14 


158  COMMUNION. 

7.  Many  years  ago,  a  venerable  friend  travelled  about 
two  hundred  miles  to  attend  the  funeral  of  an  aged  widow 
and  relative,  for  whom  he  had  entertained  the  highest 
regard.  But  the  day  before  the  departure  of  this  lady, 
which  was  sudden,  her  only  daughter  had  been  married. 
The  body  committed  to  the  grave,  the  mourners,  who  were 
from  various  parts  of  the  country,  returned  to  the  house, 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  times,  to  dine  together, 
before  reading  the  will  and  dispersing,  perhaps  to  assemble 
no  more  on  earth.  But  the  friends  of  the  deceased  were 
friends  also  of  the  newly  married  pair;  and  several,  forget- 
ting the  sad  occasion  that  had  brought  them  together,  took 
the  opportunity  to  congratulate  the  young  people  on  their 
recent  marriage.  Before  the  cloth  was  removed,  instead 
of  the  solemnity  of  a  funeral,  the  gaiety  of  a  marriage 
feast  was  exhibited  by  many  of  the  company,  and  one  of 
the  guests  rising,  formally  proposed  to  the  whole  company 
as  an  opening  toast,  '^  The  health  of  the  bride  and  bride- 
groom.^' Wounded  at  what  would  so  evidently  change 
the  nature  of  the  assembly,  the  old  man  rose,  and  address- 
ing the  newly-married  ones,  said,  ^'Mj  children,  I  cannot 
drink  this  health  on  this  occasion.  I  love  you  both,  and 
freely  give  you  my  blessing ;  but  I  came  here  to-day  not 
to  attend  the  marriage  feast  of  young  friends,  but  the 
funeral  feast  of  an  old  friend. ''  That  pledge,  given  at 
that  time,  would  have  been  the  symbol,  not  merely  of 
friendship  for  the  young  couple,  hut  that  the  occasion  of 
assembling  was  a  marriage,  and  not  a  funeral  feast.  The 
parties  had  no  right  to  feel  hurt  with  their  friend,  as 
though  he  ^^  would  not  drink  of  the  same  cup  with  them,'' 
or  not  symbolize  by  any  consistent  means,  his  wishes 
for  their  happiness.  Not  to  partake  was  no  token  of  this. 
To  partake,  would   in  his  view  have  been  disrespect  to 


APPLICATION.  159 

the  particular  occasion  that  had  brought  them  together. 
Those  who  proposed  the  toast,  by  failing  to  perceive  all 
that  would  have  been  expressed  by  that  symbol,  i.  e.  that 
this  was  a  wedding  and  not  a  funeral  feast,  were  the  true 
causes  of  whatever  pain  was  occasioned. 

To  apply  the  anecdote  to  the  case  in  hand.  The  pain 
and  the  uneasiness  occasioned,  by  feeling  debarred  from 
uniting  with  other  Christians  in  the  bread  and  wine  of  the 
Supper,  arise  from  not  fully  comprehending  its  symbolic 
import; — that  it  is  a  token,  not  merely  of  Christian,  but  also 
of  Ghurcli  fellowship.  And  moreover,  declining  ^^to  eat  at 
the  same  table,  or  to  drink  of  the  same  cup,''  if  it  be  not 
a  common  meal,  but  symbolic  of  any  relation  between  the 
parties  not  actually  subsisting,  ought  not  to  give  pain, 
even  though  some  of  the  relations  indicated  may  actually 
exist.  Or,  if  grief  should  be  felt,  it  is  not  those  who  take 
proper  views  of  the  relations  which  the  Lord's  Supper  in- 
dicates, who  are  the  occasions  of  this  grief,  but  those  who 
do  not  see  what  is  requisite  before  they  can  be  appropriate. 


CHAPTER  II. 

EGBERT   hall's    SECOND   ARGUMENT   CONSIDERED. 

1.  The  toleration  of  all  errors  consistent  -^'ith  Salvation,  considered. 

3.  No  Christians  practice  thus.    3.  The  Scriptures  forbid  this  course. 

4.  Consequences  of  Kobert  Hall's  views.  5.  EiTors  generally  de- 
structive, may  not  be  so  in  every  case.  6.  Persons  holding  almost 
every  species  of  error  might  become  Church  Officers  on  the  Mixed 
Communion  plan.  7.  The  cases  of  John  Milton  and  others.  8.  This 
system  would  permit  Eoman  Catholio  priests  to  perform  their  cere- 
monies in  Baptist  Churches. — Ariaus. — Polygamists.  9.  Rom.  14th 
and  loth,  considered.  10.  The  command  to  receive,  only  applies  when 
the  individual  is  complying  with  the  whole  revealed  wiU  of  God, 
in  the  matter  in  hand.  1 1 .  The  case  stated  in  another  manner  by 
Robert  Hall,  considered;  12.  Each  Church  must  be  allowed  to  de- 
clare its  own  terms  of  Communion.  13.  Why  Pedobaptists  should 
not  be  admitted  to  Baptist  Churches.  14.  Effects  of  Pedobaptism  as 
a  system. 

1.  ^^The  practice  of  open  Communion  argued  from  the 
express  injunction  of  Scripture,  respecting  the  conduct  to  he 
maintained  hy  sincere  Christians,  who  differ  in  their  reli- 
gious sentiments." 

"Wb  are  expressly  commanded/'  says  Robert  Hall,  at 
tlie  opening  of  his  remarks  under  the  above  caption,  "  to 
tolerate  in  the  Church,  those  diversities  of  opinion  which 
are  not  inconsistent  with  salvation.  We  learn  from  the 
New  Testament,  that  a  diversity  of  views  subsisted  in  the 
times  of  the  Apostles,  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 
converts  especially. '^ 

That  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  tolerate  some  diver- 


A    SINGULAR    ASSUMPTION.  161 

sity  of  opinion  in  their  churches,  none  will  question.  But 
our  author  asserts,  and  intends  to  assert,  in  the  above  quo- 
tation, that  -we  are  commanded  to  tolerate  in  the  same 
Church,  all  those  diversities  of  opinion  which  are  not 
inconsistent  with  salvation.  Not  only  do  we  dissent  from 
this  singular  assumption,  but  there  is  perhaps  no  denomi- 
nation of  Christians  who  would  practically  agree  with  him. 
Such  a  plan  of  Church  membership  would  lead  us  to 
tolerate  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants,  members  of  the 
Greek  Church,  and  members  of  all  the  nominal  Christian 
sects  that  have  produced  one  good  man ; — would  lead  us  to 
tolerate  them  all  as  of  equal  standing  and  authority  in  our 
own  churches  with  ourselves,  whether  as  lay  members  or 
ministers,  and  however  erroneous  their  sentiments  and 
mischievous  their  course  of  action ;  unless  we  were  prepared 
in  each  case  to  declare  their  particular  opinions  or  lives  to 
be  ^^  inconsistent  with  salvation."  But  of  this  more  here- 
after. 

2.  Where  is  the  denomination  that  does  not  require  of 
its  members  many  things  not  necessary  to  salvation  ?  The 
Pedobaptist  symbols  require  infant  baptism ;  why  should 
we  be  stigmatized  for  requiring  true  baptism  ? 

3.  Robert  Hall  would  probably  reply  that  this  may  be 
sufficient  as  an  argumentum  ad  hominem,  when  replying  to 
Pedobaptists,  but  does  not  meet  what  he  asserts  to  be 
the  New  Testament  rule;  by  which  he  thinks  "we  are 
expressly  commanded"  to  tolerate  in  the  same  Church  all 
those  diversities  of  opinion,  not  inconsistent  with  salvation. 
On  the  contrary,  we  assert  that  so  far  from  any  such 
command  being  producible  from  Scripture,  we  are  even 
commanded  not  to  tolerate,  nor  give  place  by  subjection 
for  an  hour,  to  many  errors  both  of  faith  and  practice  in 
the  Churches,  which  may  yet  be  quite  consistent  with  the 

14* 


162  COMMUNION. 

possible  salvation  of  the  individual  holding  them.  From 
"  every  Sro^/ier  that  walketh  disorderly/'  we  are  commanded 
to  ^^withdraw'^  ourselves.  The  mode  in  which  this  com- 
mand is  worded  is  exceedingly  strong.  ^'  Now  we  com- 
mand yoU;  brethren,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walk- 
eth  disorderly  :''  2  Thess.  3:6.  "A  man  that  is  an  heretic/' 
(ttt^ET'tpcos',)  literally,  one  who  creates  dissensions  or  intro- 
duces errors,  ^a  factious  person^  (see  Robinson's  Lexicon,) 
"is  to  be  rejected  after  the  first  and  second  admonition  :'' 
Titus  3:  10.  "  He  that  will  not  work,  neither  may  he  eat." 
Indeed,  this  principle  is  taught  in  many  passages,  that  the 
extent  of  the  error  of  the  individual,  or  the  extent  to 
which  it  may  be  supposed  to  endanger  his  salvation,  is  not 
alone  that  by  which  the  Church  is  to  be  governed  in  re- 
taining or  rejecting  an  individual,  but  the  effect  also  of  his 
error  upon  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  and  upon  the 
world,  is  also  to  be  considered.  One  tainted  sheep  may 
infect  a  flock.  One  disorderly  soldier  tolerated,  will  break 
up  the  discipline  of  a  regiment.  Enough  this  to  show  the 
error  of  Robert  Hall's  principles,  for  which  alone  it  is  here 
introduced. 

4.  That  none  but  those  who  make  a  credible  profession 
of  personal  piety  can  properly  be  received  into  regular 
Christian  Churches  is  unquestionable.  But  that  each 
visible  Church  of  Christ  is  to  tolerate  in  its  own  members 
every  conceivable  diversity  in  practice  from  what  the 
Divine  law  prescribed ;  that  those  who  hold  and  practice 
thus  in  regard  to  any  errors,  not  absolutely  inconsistent 
with  their  own  final  salvation,  however  destructive  to 
thousands,  shall  be  allowed  to  agitate  and  proselyte,  and 
vote  in  the  Church  with  equal  authority  as  the  regular 
and  orderly  members;  must  lead  to  consequences  so  sub- 


CONSEQUENCES    OF   THE    PRINCIPLE.  163 

versive  of  all  the  ends  for  which  Churches  are  valuable, 
that  we  might  be  quite  sure  d  priori,  that  such  could  not 
have  been  the  New  Testament  plan  of  Church  membership. 
Yet  such  is  the  toleration  for  which  Robert  Hall  pleads. 
That  Church  membership  would  be  of  little  worth,  which 
permitted  all  errors  possible  to  good  men  to  receive  its 
sanction ;  and  those  who  held  them  to  vote  in  their  favor, 
and  to  teach  and  propagate  them  with  as  much  zeal  as 
others  uphold  truth. 

And  yet,  that  no  doubt  may  remain  as  to  the  meaning 
intended,  our  author  yet  more  explicitly  states  his  views 
thus  :  "  Having  paved  the  way  to  the  conclusion  to  which 
we  would  conduct  the  reader,  we  have  only  to  remark,  that 
in  order  to  determine  how  far  these  apostolic  injunctions 
oblige  us  to  tolerate  the  supposed  error  of  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren,  we  have  merely  to  consider  whether  it  necessarily 
does  exclude  them  from  being  of  tlie  number  of  those  whom 
Christ  has  received  to  the  glory  of  the  Father;  whether  it  be 
possible  to  hold  it  with  Christian  sincerity )  and  finally, 
whether  its  abettors  will  stand  or  fall  in  the  eternal  judg- 
ment.'^* 

It  may  here  be  observed,  on  this  and  the  preceding  ex- 
tract, that  the  author  applies  his  remarks  equally  to  full 
and  permanent  Church  membership,  as  to  occasional  par- 
ticipation at  the  Lord's  Table.  All  that  he  advances  in 
favor  of  the  latter,  he  considers  as  making  equally  for  the 
former.  There  is  with  him  no  shrinking  from  conse- 
quences. He  who  is  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Table 
at  all,  is  to  be  admitted  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
full  Church  membership.  His  vote  is  to  have  just  as 
much  influence  in  calling  a  Pastor,  in  deciding  what  doc- 

*  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  326-7. 


164  COMMUNION. 

trines  shall  be  maintained^  wliat  allowed  and  what  insti- 
tuted. He  is  to  be  equally  eligible  to  all  the  offices  of  the 
Churchj  and  may  be  elected  Deacon,  or  chosen  Pastor. 

5.  Unquestionably,  many  errors,  of  a  tendency  fatal  to 
the  Church,  as  a  body,  and  utterly  subversive  of  all  that 
is  vital  in  Christianity,  may  not  be  pronounced  necessarily 
so  to  every  individual  holding  them;  and  they  have  actually 
been  held  by  good  and  pious  men.  This  is  particularly 
the  case  with  many  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  But 
unless  we  are  ready  to  pronounce  that  an  error  "  necessarilj/ 
excludes  the  person  holding  it  from  being  of  the  number 
of  those  whom  Christ  has  received  to  the  glory  of  the 
Father,"  or  that  it  is  "  impossible  to  hold  it  with  Christian 
sincerity,"  or  that  "  its  abettors  will  certainly  fall  in  the 
eternal  judgment," — unless,  I  say,  we  are  prepared  to 
assume  the  prerogative  of  Deity,  and  determine  that  the 
error  in  question  necessarily  involves  one  at  least  of  the 
above  consequences,  if  not  all,  we  are  then  ^^  expressly 
commanded"  in  Scripture,  our  author  would  assert,  to 
tolerate  in  the  Church,  of  which  we  are  members,  these 
^diversities  of  opinion;"  that  is  to  say,  we  are  to  admit 
the  holders  of  them  to  perfect  social  equality  in  voting, 
speaking  and  preaching.  We  repeat  it,  the  error  in  ques- 
tion may  be  of  the  most  deadly  general  tendency,  it  may 
be  the  ruin  of  thousands  of  souls ;  but  unless  we  are  pre- 
pared to  decide  that  it  necessarili/  excludes  the  individual 
promulgating  it,  from  the  number  of  those  whom  Christ 
has  received,  we  must  regard  it  (the  error)  as  one  of  those 
diversities  of  opinion,  which  are  to  be  tolerated  in  the 
Church,  as  not  inconsistent  with  salvation.  That  all  these 
consequences  legitimately  and  necessarily  result  from  our 
author's  views,  no  one  can  deny.  So  far  as  their  applica- 
tion to  Pedobaptism  is  concerned,  he  admits  them ;  and  so 


BESULTS    OF   KOBEET   HALL'S    SYSTEM.  165 

far,  in  Great  Britain,  our  Mixed  Communion  Cliurclies 
practice  fully  up  to  all  that  lias  been  stated.  Robert  Hall 
himself  predicted,  that  should  these  views  prevail,  "the 
Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  in  Christian  societies,  would 
probably  ere  long  be  such,  that  the  appellation  of  Baptist 
might  be  found  not  so  properly  applicable  to  Churches  as 
to  individuals.' ' — ("  Reasons,'^  &c.,  HalFs  Works,  vol.  II., 
p.  228-9.) 

6.  This  is,  indeed,  evident.  Pedobaptist  Churches,  espe- 
cially Congregational,  might  be  as  well  expected  to  adopt 
Ptobert  Hairs  plan  of  Church  membership,  as  our  own. 
If  they  did,  the  Pedobaptist  pastor,  deacons  and  mem- 
bers, would  be  members  of  Churches  of  precisely  the  same 
class  as  those  of  Mixed  Communion  Baptists.  Baptists 
would  have  equal  rights,  equal  authority  to  teach  j  and 
whichever  party  had  the  majority  of  members  in  any  par- 
ticular Church,  or  in  the  body  of  the  Churches,  at  any 
time,  would  have  a  right  to  consider  their  sentiments  as 
the  prevailing  ones  of  the  Church  or  denomination ;  other 
views  would  exist  only  by  "  toleration,^^  if  there  was  any 
difference. 

These  results  have  been  actually  realized  to  a  certain 
extent.  The  preaching  of  Baptism,  or  even  speaking  on 
the  subject  in  private,  has  been  forbidden.  Pedobaptist 
deacons  and  pastors  have  been  elected  to  Baptist  Churches ; 
and,  we  believe,  instances  have  occurred  of  infants  being 
sprinkled  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Pedobaptist  por- 
tion of  the  communicants  in  the  same  Church,  where 
believers  were  immersed  to  suit  the  other  portion.  What- 
ever may  be  thought  of  this,  so  far  as  Pedobaptists  are 
concerned,  Robert  Hall  professes  himself  ready  to  act 
upon  the  same  principles  in  regard  to  all  other  errors  and 
error ists ;  nay,  even  that  the  Scriptures  "  expressly  com- 


166  COMMUNION. 

mand"  tlie  adoption  of  this  principle  in  every  case.  He 
com]3lains  elsewliere  that  our  course  is  reducible  to  no 
general  principle.  But  the  general  principle  on  which  he 
bases  his  Terms  of  Membership,  is  pregnant  with  such  con- 
sequences, that  we  should  be  pardonable  if  we  were  even 
to  prefer  none  to  such. 

7.  According  to  his  theory,  no  one  of  our  Churches 
could  be  distinctively  Calvinistic,  unless  we  were  j^repared 
to  say  that  Arminianism  necessarily  excludes  men  from 
being  of  the  number  Christ  has  received.  John  Milton 
argued  in  favor  of  Divorce.  None  would  be  prepared  to 
say  that  this  error  necessarily  excluded  him  from  being 
received  of  Christ,  or  that  it  was  not  held  with  all  sin- 
cerity;  consequently,  this  must  be  placed  on  the  list  of 
tolerated  errors.  He,  also,  was  an  Arian.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  therefore,  is  no  longer  to  be  deemed  a  funda- 
mental doctrine.  Dr.  Bushnell  is  understood  to  deny  the 
proper  vicariousness  of  the  Atonement.  Yet,  unless  we 
are  prepared  to  pronounce  that  he  is  necessarily  excluded 
from  being  of  the  number  of  those  whom  Christ  has 
received,  (which  those  who  have  the  best  means  of  know- 
ing his  personal  character  shrink  from  doing,)  the  rejection 
of  vicarious  Atonement  is  to  be  placed  on  the  list  of  those 
^^  differences  of  opinion'^  that  are  to  be  equally  tolerated 
with  correct  views  upon  Baptism. 

It  is  proper  here  again  distinctly  to  recall  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader,  that  according  to  the  plan  of  Church 
Membership,  which  we  are  here  told  the  Scriptures  "  ex- 
pressly command,'^  if  any  error  may  possibly  be  held  by 
some  individuals  without  ^^necessarily  excluding  tliem'* 
from  salvation ;  whatever  may  be  its  general  tendency,  the 
holders  of  it  are  none  of  them  on  that  account  to  be 
refused  full  social  equality  in  the  Church,  unless  we  are 


TENDENCY    OF    ROBERT    HALL'S    SYSTEM.        167 

prepared  to  pronounce  them  individually,  not  true  Chris- 
tians. They  are  to  have  as  much  liberty  to  consider  and 
declare  that  their  error  is  sanctioned  by  the  voice  of  the 
Church,  as  we  have  concerning  the  opposing  truth.  It  is 
to  be  preached  against  no  more  than  Baptism,  and  the 
Minister  holding  it  is  to  be  allowed  the  same  liberty  we  claim 
in  our  own  Church.  So  far  as  Pedobaptism  is  concerned, 
Mr.  Hall  actually  adopted  these  sentiments.  Augustine, 
one  of  the  most  pious  of  all  the  Christian  Fathers,  (as 
his  ^^Confessions"  will  show,)  held  to  praying  for  the  dead, 
and  baptismal  regeneration  ;  Fenelon  was  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic ;  Neander  and  Arnold  hardly  believe  in  infallible 
inspiration ;  John  Foster  shrunk  from  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment.  And  must  we,  then,  be  driven  to  the 
dilemma  of  either  declaring  such  men  as  these  ^^necessarily 
excluded,"  by  the  errors  we  have  named,  from  salvation; 
or  else  of  being  "  expressly  commanded"  by  Scripture  to 
receive  them  as  members  and  ministers  of  our  own 
Churches,  not  repelling  them  in  any  numbers  on  this 
account,  if  we  do  not  see  some  special  reason  to  feel 
assured  of  their  not  being  in  a  gracious  state  ? 

We  must  thus,  in  fact,  permit  the  Roman  Catholic  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  deniers  of  inspiration  on  the  other, 
to  mix  so  freely  and  equally  in  our  Churches,  that  we 
shall  not  be  known  as  favoring  any  views  in  preference  to 
these,  until  the  name  of  Baptist  ^'  might  be  found  not  so 
properly  applicable  to  Churches  as  to  individuals;"  and 
ministers  of  every  shade  of  opinion,  from  Roman  Catho- 
licism to  Arianism,  claim  a  perfect  equality  of  sanction 
with  our  own,  as  a  thing  expressly  commanded  in  Scrip- 
ture from  every  one  of  our  Churches.  Thus  must  we 
surrender  the  ancient  and  apostolic  motto,  on  which  our 
Churches  are  at  present  based;  and  instead  of  "  one  Lord, 


168  COMMUNION. 

one  faitli^  and  one  baptism/^  inscribe  '^  many  Lords,  many 
opinions,  and  many  baptisms/^  Our  Mixed  Communion 
brethren  do  not  shrink  from  all  these  consequences,  so  far 
as  Pedobaptism  is  concerned ;  and  they  declare  that  the 
same  general  principle  will  apply  to  all  other  cases. 

8.  But  even  this  is  not  the  whole.  We  are,  according 
to  the  Mixed  Communion  theory,  to  tolerate  not  only 
speculative  differences  of  opinion,  but  actual  differences  of 
practice,  until  we  reach  that  point  at  which  we  are  pre- 
pared to  decide  that  they  necessarily  exclude  those  who 
practice  them  from  the  favor  of  Grod.  Thus  we  are  not 
only  to  tolerate  a  speculative  belief  in  Infant  Baptism,  but 
to  allow  the  Pedobaptist  to  practice  what  lie  helieves.  This 
is,  we  admit,  necessary  to  consistency.  But  observe  to 
what  it  must  lead.  We  are  to  tolerate  John  Milton's 
^^  difference  of  opinion'^  about  divorce,  because  we  are  not 
prepared  to  say  that  it  necessarily  excluded  him  from  a 
state  of  grace.  It  is  not  to  be  preached  against  in  the 
Church,  so  as  to  give  offence  or  hurt  the  conscience  of  any 
weak  brother  holding  such  views.  But  suppose  he  had 
practised  what  he  believed,  must  we  tolerate  divorce  at 
option  ?  We  must  permit  pious  Boman  Catholics  to  pray 
to  the  Virgin  Mary,  to  adore  the  Host,  and  kneel  in  con- 
fession to  a  priest,  and  at  the  same  time  be  full  undisci- 
plined members,  perhaps  ministers  of  our  Churches  !  It 
is  a  difference  of  opinion  not  "  necessarily  excluding''  from 
salvation. 

It  is  not  many  years  since  a  Minister  of  the  Gospel,  by 
all  esteemed  most  pious,  wrote  a  work  to  prove  that  every 
seducer  should  be  compelled  to  marry  his  victim,  even 
were  he  a  married  man;  thus  advocating  compulsory  poly- 
gamy, in  certain  cases.  Suppose  that  opinion  to  be  con- 
scientiously acted  upon  by  some  penitent  adulterer,  must 


PASSAGES    URGED    BY   MR.    HALL.  169 

we  tolerate  practices  in  the  Church,  that  the  good  of  society 
requires  to  be  punished  by  the  law  of  the  land  ? 

9.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  no  such  plan  of 
Church  Membership  could  be  "expressly  commanded/' 
or  ought  to  be  supposed  to  be,  from  any  process  of  infer- 
ential argument,  from  isolated  passages. 

The  passages,  however,  quoted  by  Robert  Hall,  in  sup- 
port of  these  views,  are  Rom.  14:  1 — 5.  "Him  that  is 
weak  in  the  faith,  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputa- 
tions,''  &c. ;  and  Rom.  15 :  1,  6,  7.  "  We,  then,  that  are 
strong,  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities  of  the  weak,  and  not 
to  please  ourselves,"  &c.  On  these  Robert  Hall  argues 
thus :  "  A  moment's  attention  to  the  connection  will  con- 
vince the  reader  that  the  term  weak  in  both  these  passages 
denotes  persons  whose  conceptions  are  erroneous.  .  .  . 
It  behooves  us  to  examine  the  principle  on  which  the 
Apostle  enjoins  toleration,  and  if  this  is  applicable  in  its 
full  extent  to  the  case  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  no 
room  is  left  for  doubt.  The  'principle  plainly  is,  that  the 
error  in  question  was  not  of  such  magnitude,  as  to  pre- 
clude him  who  maintained  it  from  the  favor  of  God. 
^  Let  not  him  who  eateth,  despise  him  who  eateth  not ; 
and  let  not  him  who  eateth  not,  judge  him  who  eateth ; 
for  God  hath  received  him.^ If  such  is  the  rea- 
son assigned  for  mutual  toleration,  and  it  is  acknowledged 
to  be  a  sufficient  one,  which  none  can  deny  without  im- 
peaching the  inspiration  of  the  writer,  it  is  as  conclusive 
respecting  the  obligation  of  tolerating  every  error  which  is 
consistent  loith  a  state  of  salvation,  as  if  that  error  had 

been  mentioned  by  name Hence,  we  have  only 

one  alternative,  either  to  deny  that  those  who  difi"er  from 

us  on  the  subject  of  Baptism  are  accepted  of  Grod,  or  to 

receive  them  into  fellowship  on  exactly  the  same  ground^ 

15 


170  COMMUNION. 

and  on  the  same  principle  that  Paul  enjoined  the  tolera- 
tion of  sincere  Christians/'* 

10.  It  is  sufficient  to  remark  on  these  passages,  that 
they  only  prove  what  all  admit,  that  some  differences  of 
opinion  and  practice,  are  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Church, 
when  we  have  reason  to  believe  the  weak  brother,  a  per- 
son accepted  of  God.  What  the  nature  of  the  difference 
is,  in  regard  to  which  the  command  to  receive  the  brother 
applies,  we  are  particularly  informed ;  i.  e.,  as  to  matters  in 
regard  to  wMcJi,  there  is  no  inspired  direction^  one  way 
more  than  another.  In  such  cases,  the  individual  was  com- 
plying  with  the  whole  will  of  Gody  as  revealed  by  inspira- 
tion, whichever  way  he  might  act. 

The  Apostle,  it  will  be  observed,  then  places  the  recep- 
tion of  these  weak  brethren,  distinctly  on  these  two 
grounds.  1st.  That  whichever  way  they  might  act,  they 
violated  no  command  of  inspiration,  but  were  complying 
with  the  whole  revealed  will  of  God,  in  regard  to  the  mat- 
ter in  dispute.  This  is  most  expressly  stated  in  the  14th 
verse  :  ^'  I  know,  and  am  persuaded  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself ;''  but  it  is  also  im- 
plied, and  taken  for  granted,  in  the  2d,  5th,  and  6th 
verses ;  "  one  believeth  that  he  may  eat  all  things,  another 
who  is  weak,  eateth  herbs,''  (but  both  equally  fulfill  every 
Divine  command  on  this  subject).  2d.  This  being  the  case, 
and,  God  the  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  having 
received  them,  not  only  in  these  respects,  but  also  gene- 
rally as  the  children  of  grace,  it  was  fitting  that  they 
should  be  tolerated  by  the  Church  at  Rome.  ^^  Wherefore'^ 
(on  account  of  the  principles  of  toleration  in  the  Church 
of  the  different  customs  of  those  persons,  not  violating 

*  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  325-6. 


INCONSEQUENTIAL    REASONING.  171 

any  inspired  command,)  ^^  receive  ye  one  another,  as 
Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  Grod/^ 

But  to  argue  from  the  command  in  relation  to  those, 
ho,  as  to  the  matters  in  question,  had  fulfilled  the  whole 
revealed  will  of  Grod,  to  tolerate  their  harmless  whims, 
because  "  Grod  has  received  them,''  that,  therefore,  we  are 
bound  to  tolerate  all  opinions  of  persons  living  in  acknow- 
ledged errors,  and  without  having  fulfilled  the  whole  re- 
vealed will  of  God,  in  regard  to  the  matters  in  question, 
but  whom  Grod  has  received  as  Christians ;  that  we  are 
bound  to  receive  them,  not  as  Christians  only,  which  we 
do,  but  in  other  respects  also,  will  perhaps  remind  the 
admirers  of  Coleridge  of  what  he  aptly  terms  "  the  ever- 
widening  spiral  ergo^  from  the  narrow  aperture  of  a  single 
text,"  '^  the  inverted  pyramid,  of  which  the  apex  is  the 
base."     (Aids  to  Reflection,  on  Baptism.) 

11.  And  yet,  with  a  fii-m  conviction  of  its  being  unan- 
swerable, our  author  triumphantly  recurs  to  it  again  and 
again,  in  language  like  this.  "  From  these  premises,  we 
argue  thus.  Since  St.  Paul  assigned  as  a  reason  for  the 
mutual  forbearance  of  Christians,  that  they  were  equally 
accepted  of  Christ,  it  was,  undoubtedly,  a  sufficient  one, 
and  admitting  it  to  be  such,  it  must  extend  to  all  who  are 
in  the  same  predicament,  (who  are  in  the  same  state  of 
acceptance)."* 

We  desire  to  make  but  two  remarks  on  the  above. 
1st.  Instead  of  saying,  ^^  since  St.  Paul  assigned  as  a  rea- 
son for  the  mutual  forbearance  of  Christians,"  he  should 
have  said,  ^^  of  those  Christians  who,  in  regard  to  the  mat- 
ters in  question,  have  complied  with  all  the  requirements  of 
insj^irationJ^     2d.  That  correction  being  made,  we  may 

*  Eeply  to  Kinghorn,  part  3,  cli.  7.     Works,  p.  457. 


172  COMMUNION. 

grant  that  Ms  conclusion  in  regard  to  mutual  forbearance 
will  apply  to  all  who  are  ^^in  the  same  predicament,^'  that 
is,  not  merely  all  who  are  ^^  in  a  state  of  acceptance/' 
but  ^'  the  same  state  of  acceptance,"  i.  e.,  those  in  whom 
the  two  conditions  meet,  of  complying  with  all  the  Divine 
commands  in  regard  to  Church  Membership,  and  being 
received  of  Grod.  Can  it  be  claimed  for  Pedobaptists, 
however,  (to  say  nothing  at  all  of  those  who  are  permitted 
to  hold  errors  of  any  and  every  description,  except  such 
as  ^^  necessarily  exclude  from  salvation,'^)  can  it  be 
claimed  for  them  we  ask,  under  these  passages,  that  we  are 
expressly  commanded  to  receive  them,  not  as  Christians 
only,  but  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  our  own  par- 
ticular Churches  ? 

Suppose,  in  order  to  put  a  case  as  exactly  fitted  to  bring 
out  the  force  of  the  text  quoted  by  Robert  Hall  as  pos- 
sible, and  at  the  same  time,  as  closely  to  illustrate  the 
question  on  hand,  as  we  know  how, — suppose  that  two  con- 
ditions are  necessary  to  visible  Church  Membership,  in 
any  denomination,  one  is,  that  the  individual  be  profess- 
edly in  acceptance  with  God ;  and  the  other,  that  he  com- 
ply with  the  requirements  of  the  Inspired  Volume,  in 
regard  to  the  ordinance  of  Baptism :  might  not  a  Pastor, 
speaking  of  such  as  had  complied  with  these  latter  require- 
ments, say,  ^'  Wherefore,  since  these  brethren  have  com- 
plied with  the  command,  receive  them,  for  Christ  has 
received  them  V  and  would  it  be  fair  to  infer  from  such 
an  address,  that  the  Pastor  had  taught  that  persons  who 
had  acted  contrary  to  the  Divine  requirements,  in  regard 
to  Baptism,  were  to  be  received  into  visible  Church  Mem- 
bership, if  only  Christians  ? 

12.  And  here  we  might  rest,  contented  with  having 
destroyed  the  plan  of  Church  Membership  advocated  by 


CHURCH   DISCRETION.  173 

Robert  Hall.  But  for  ourselves,  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying,  that  we  think  these  passages  about  tolerating 
Jewish  scruples,  held  modestly  and  without  disputation, 
when  put  in  connection  with  those  which  speak  of  with- 
drawing from  the  disorderly,  and  rejecting  the  factious, 
show  that  a  discretionary  power  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  left 
with  each  particular  Church,  in  different  states  of  the 
world,  and  in  different  ages ;  to  declare  not  only  what  is  a 
credible  profession  of  piety,  and  what  are  the  divinely 
appointed  requisites  of  visible  Church  Membership,  but 
(so  that  they  do  not  dispense  with  what  is  thus  made  re- 
quisite,) also  to  determine  for  itself,  to  a  certain  extent, 
how  high  a  standard  of  Church  Membership  it  is  best^br 
the  promotion  of  Divine  truth  in  the  world  that  they  should 
adopt.  A  Church  is  a  voluntary  association.  Each  Church 
has  a  right  to  propound  a  summary  of  its  views,  and  every 
candidate  for  admission  can  state  that  he  receives  or  re- 
jects it.  This  is  the  origin  of  all  Confessions  of  Faith, 
and  so  far  they  need  not  be  objected  to.  The  whole  his- 
tory of  revealed  religion  in  the  world,  shows  that  many 
things,  rightly  tolerated  in  one  age  and  situation  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  world,  would  be  injurious  if  tolerated 
in  another.  In  bodies  like  the  Churches  of  Christ,  formed 
not  only  for  the  good  of  the  individual,  but  of  the  whole, 
and  not  only  for  the  edification  of  the  Church  itself,  but 
to  carry  on  the  aggressive  warfare  of  Christian  holiness 
upon  the  world,  they  must  often  require  of  the  individual, 
a  very  much  stricter  compliance  with  the  rules  of  disci- 
pline, than  might  be  essential  to  his  individual  salvation  ; 
or  the  whole  array  of  Christian  discipline  would  soon  be 
overturned. 

13.  If  now  it  should  be  asked,  whether,  upon  these  prin- 
ciples, our  churches  might  not  well  use  their  discretionary 
15* 


174  COMMUNION. 

power,  in  favor  of  admitting  to  their  membership  unbap- 
tized  persons,  we  reply,  No.  And  for  these  reasons,  because 
it  would  be  contrary  to  acknowledged  Apostolic  usage,  and 
contrary  to  the  sentiments  of  all  Christians,  in  all  places  and 
at  all  times ;  because  practically  it  must  destroy  all  liberty 
of  speech  and  action  upon  the  subject  of  Baptism,  for  fear 
of  giving  oifence  ;  stifling  all  that  inquiry  and  discussion, 
through  which  truth,  though  at  first  in  the  minority,  soon 
gains  adherents ;  because,  with  the  present  vast  numerical 
majority  of  Pedobaptists,  it  must  mix  up  and  destroy 
Baptist  Churches  as  such,  and  so  obliterate  Baptist  senti- 
ments 'j  because  the  plan  we  adopt  allows  more  liberty  and 
freedom  of  discussion;  because  it  is  adopted  by  all  deno- 
minations in  this  country,  and  by  all  churches  in  relation 
to  other  difierences  of  opinion,  as  in  regard  to  Arminian- 
ism,  Calvinism,  and  even  the  sale  and  use  of  ardent 
spirits ;  and  because  the  plan  of  Church  Membership,  pro- 
posed by  Robert  Hall  in  the  place  of  our  own,  cannot  be 
carried  out  to  its  legitimate  results,  without  the  most  per- 
nicious annihilation  of  all  the  distinctive  features  of  Chris- 
tian truth. 

14.  Besides  all  this ;  while  far  be  it  from  us  to  suppose 
a  belief  in  Infant  Baptism  necessarily  incompatible  with 
the  most  sincere  and  exalted  piety,  yet  as  the  peculiar 
harmlessness  of  Pedobaptism  is  the  great  plea,  urged  in 
favour  of  Mixed  Communion ;  it  is  proper  to  observe,  that 
Infant  Baptism,  as  a  system,  has  been  fraught  with  the 
most  destructive  effects  to  Christian  piety,  and  a  regene- 
rate Church  Membership,  for  the  last  fifteen  hundred  years, 
of  any  system  equally  prevalent.  To  perceive  this  fully, 
we  must  look  at  it,  not  where,  from  its  close  contact  with 
Baptist  systems,  it  has  lost  most  of  its  distinctive  features; 
but  we  must  observe  it,  where  it  is  followed  to  its  legiti- 


EVILS    OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  175 

mate  results.  We  must  behold  it  in  Papal  countries^  for 
example,  and  see  how  it  has  at  once  swept  the  world  into 
the  Church,  obliterating  entirely  the  distinction  between 
the  converted  and  the  unrenewed.  Has  it  not  led  to  the 
belief,  in  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  G-reek,  and  in  many 
Protestant  Churches,  that  the  application  of  a  little  water 
to  an  unconscious  babe,  can  make  it  ^^a  member  of  Christ, 
a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ?  "  Has  it  not,  by  a  natural  consequence,  in  regard 
to  those  dying  in  infancy,  led  to  the  belief,  wide-spread, 
but  most  intolerable,  (and  as  Coleridge  declares,  one  that 
alone  came  near  making  him  reject  Infant  Baptism  alto- 
gether,) i.  e.,  that  "  the  want  of  it  may  occasion  their  eternal 
loss?^'  Has  it  not,  so  far  as  acted  upon,  destroyed  the 
possibility  of  keeping  up  Church  discipline,  and  by  mix- 
ing up  the  worldly  with  the  pious  in  the  Church,  brought 
all  the  evils  of  an  unconverted  Ministry  upon  whole 
nations ;  so  that  when  Wesley  arose,  he  could  find  but 
about  three,  whom  he  thought  converted  Ministers,  even 
in  the  Established  Church  of  England  ?  From  this  source 
sprang  in  New  England  that  superficial  morality,  in  place 
of  evangelical  repentance  and  obedience,  which  not  unnat- 
urally resulted  in  wide-spread  Unitarianism.*  So  too,  on 
the  other  hand.  Infant '  Baptism  has  formed  the  chief 
hiding  place  and  proof  of  that  doctrine  of  Tradition, 
which  is  now  exerting  such  a  fearful  influence  in  the 

*  The  Author  has  alluded  to  the  condition  of  the  EstabUshed  Church 
of  England,  in  the  time  of  Wesley.  The  Church  of  Scotland  was  but 
little  better  when  first  visited  by  Whitefield. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  special  remark,  that  Geneva,  the  birthplace  of 
modem  Presbyterianism,  and  Boston,  the  cradle  of  modern  Congrega- 
tionalism, have  both  been  saved  from  utterly  sinking  into  the  vortex  of 
Socinianism,  by  the  blessing  of  God  on  the  labors  of  zealous  Baptists. 
See  Appendix  L.  j.  n.  b. 


176  COMMUNION. 

Episcopal  and  Koman  Catholic  Cliurclies.  It  is  impos- 
sible here  to  trace  out  half  the  pernicious  effects^  both  in 
doctrine  and  in  practice,  which  have  resulted  from  Pedo- 
baptism,  as  a  si/stem.  Doubtless,  all  of  them  have  not 
been  felt  in  any  one  case.  And  many  of  the  most  evan- 
gelical spirits  have  been  reared  in  Pedobaptist  Churches. 
We  cannot  forget  that  an  Edwards,  and  a  Pay  son,  not  to 
mention  a  long  catalogue  of  others,  held  to  Infant  Bap- 
tism ;  but  a  distinguished  Pedobaptist,  Dr.  Bushnell,  in 
his  Defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  has  shown  that  these  men 
were  all  "  Baptists  in  Theory,"  in  proportion  as  they  held 
to  the  very  sentiments  for  which  we  revere  them ;  indeed, 
to  that  they  owed  it,  and  the  Churches  to  which  they 
belonged,  that  in  them  Infant  Baptism  has  produced  so 
little  of  the  very  consequences  we  deplore. 


CHAPTER  III. 

ROBERT  hall's  THIRD  ARGUMENT  CONSIDERED. 

1.  Two  senses  of  the  word  Church.  2.  Assertion  of  the  Author  that 
they  differ  only  as  a  part  from  the  whole,  considered.  3.  The  true 
distinction  destroys  his  argument.  4.  '  Those  who  commune  with 
God  fit  to  commune  with  us,'  considered.  5.  '  Presumptuously  to 
aspire  to  greater  purity  than  Christ,'  considered.  6.  The  same  rea- 
soning applied  to  the  Passover. 

1.  The  title  of  tliis  argument  is^  ^^  Pedobaptists  a  part 
of  the  true  Church ;  their  exclusion  on  that  account  un- 
lawful.'' 

Under  this  head,  our  author  commences  by  remarking, 
that  ('  If  we  examine  the  New  Testament,  we  shall  find, 
that  the  term  Church,  as  a  religious  appellation,  occurs  in 
two  senses  only  :  it  either  denotes  the  whole  body  of  the 
faithful,  (as  where  Christ  is  declared  to  be  Head  over  all 
things  to  the  Church,  which  is  his  body),  or  some  one 
assembly  of  Christians,  associated  for  the  worship  of  God,^' 
(as  the  Church  at  Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  or  at  Rome).  "It 
is  never  used  as  in  modern  times,  to  denote  the  aggregate 
of  Christian  assemblies  throughout  a  province  or  a  king- 
dom, nor  do  we  ever  read  of  the  Church  of  Achaia, 
Galatia,  &c.,  but  of  the  ChurcJies." 

2.  So  far  (as  we  observed,  p.  36,)  we  fully  agree  with 
our  Author,  as  to  the  technical  uses  of  the  word  Church 
in  the  New  Testament.  There  are  but  these  two  distinct 
senses,  in  which  it  is  employed  as  a  religious  appellation 


178  COMMUNION. 

The  point  at  which  we  differ  from  Robert  Hall;  as  shown 
more  fully  (Parti.,  ch.  4.)  than  it  will  be  necessary  here  to 
repeat,  is,  where  the  Author  takes  for  granted,  that  "  it  is 
manifest  from  Scripture,  that  these  two  significations  of 
the  word  differ  from  each  other,  only  as  a  part  from  the 
whole."  If  he  means  to  assert,  that  this  is  manifest,  be- 
cause the  same  term  (sxx'krjcila)  is  used  in  both  cases,  it  would 
be  equally  proper,  to  argue  for  this  reason  also,  that  the 
tumultuous  assembly  of  the  worshipers  of  Diana,  at  Ephe- 
sus,  in  regard  to  whom  the  same  original  term  (sxx^ada) 
is  also  used,  (Acts  19.  32),  differed  from  the  Universal 
Church,  the  whole  body  of  Christ,  "  only  as  a  part  differs 
from  the  whole."  So  far  from  it  being  a  manifest  truth, 
therefore,  that  it  is  only  a  difference  of  numbers,  that  con- 
stitute the  distinction  between  a  particular  Visible  Church 
and  the  Universal  Church,  which  is  invisible ;  there  are  at 
least  two  obvious  points  of  distinction  as  to  qualification, 
necessarily  arising  from  the  fact,  that  the  one  is  a  visible, 
and  the  other  an  invisible  body;  i.  e.  1.  That  he  who 
possesses  true  piety  without  any  profession,  becomes  at 
once  a  member  of  the  invisible  Church,  while  he  only 
who  makes  some  credible-  and  appropriate  profession, 
(without  here  determining  what  it  is)  is  eligible  to  visible 
Church  fellowship.  2.  That  a  credible  profession  of  faitli 
in  (Jfirist,  in  some  particular  way  or  ways,  is  all  that  can 
be  required  for  admission  to  the  one,  while  no  conceivable 
profession  without  the  reality  admits  to  the  other.  After 
the  remarks  made  on  the  subject  in  Part  I.,  it  is  unneces- 
sary longer  to  dwell  here,  on  a  distinction  so  evident. 

3.  It  remains  but  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  only  from 
overlooking  this  distinction,  that  the  argument  which  we 
are  now  considering,  can  be  supposed  to  have  the  least 
weight.     Let  it  be  granted  that  Pedobaptists  are  a  part 


THE   TRUE   DISTINCTION   OVERLOOKED.  179 

of  the  true  Cliurcli,  Our  Author  must  mean  by  this, 
that  they  are  a  part  of  the  true  invisible  or  Universal 
Church,  which  is  the  body  of  Christ.  And  what  follows 
from  this  ?  That,  ^^  their  exclusion  on  that  account  is  unlaw- 
ful.'^ Their  exclusion  from  what?  From  the  invisible 
Church  ?  No.  None  but  ^^  He  who  has  the  key  of  David, 
who  openeth  and  no  man  shutteth,  and  shutteth  and  no 
man  openeth,^^  can  admit  into,  or  exclude  from  that  great 
spiritual  body.  Their  exclusion  from  what,  then  ?  From 
the  symbols  of  membership  in  the  invisible  Church  ?  No ; 
for  we  have  before  seen,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the 
symbol  of  something  quite  distinct  from  invisible  fellow- 
ship or  communion,  i.  e.  visible  fellowship  in  particular 
Church  relations.  Besides ;  in  what  sense  do  we  exclude 
them  from  the  Eucharist?  In  no  other  sense  than  as  every 
Jew  might  be  said  to  exclude  every  other  Jew  from  the 
Passover,  whom  he  did  not  invite  to  participate  in  it, 
with  his  own  family. 

But  passing  this  by,  for  the  moment,  we  ask,  where  is 
the  force  of  the  argument  ?  Pedobaptists,  it  is  urged,  are 
a  part  of  the  true  invisihle  Church  of  Christ.  Let  it  be 
granted )  and  what  would  follow  ?  Therefore,  we  are  bound 
to  invite  them,  as  such,  to  participate  with  us  in  all  the 
symbols  of  visible  Church  relationship,  while  they  are  not 
members  of  our  visible  Churches  ! 

We  grant  most  fully  that  many  Pedobaptists  are  mem- 
bers of  the  Spiritual  Church  Universal.  We  do  not  ex- 
clude them  from  that.  We  extend  to  them  all  the  tokens 
and  symbols  of  Spiritual  Communion.  We  unite  with 
them  in  prayer,  the  great  symbol  of  antiquity ;  and  (as 
was  shown.  Part  II.,  ch.  3,)  in  all  religious  services,  that 
do  not  imply  visible  Church  relations.     Then  their  Con- 


180  COMMUNION. 

fessions  of  Faitli  forbid  them  to  have  fellowship  with  us, 
(see  Part  II.,  ch.  8,)  as  ours  with  them. 

4.  Whoever  bears  in  mind  this  distinction,  will  experi- 
ence no  difficulty  from  the  following  passage,  in  which  our 
author,  with  his  characteristic  urgency,  argues  in  this 
chapter.  After  stating  that  there  are  certain  propositions 
which  produce,  on  the  unprejudiced,  instantaneous  convic- 
tion, he  gives  the  following  as  one  of  these  obvious  truths. 
Those  whom  the  Divine  Founder  of  the  Church  "  actuates 
by  his  Spirit,  and  admits  to  Communion  with  himself,  are 
sufficiently  qualified  for  Communion  with  mortals.  What 
can  be  alleged,''  asks  our  author,  "in  opposition  to  a 
truth  so  indubitable  and  so  obvious  V  It  is  not  necessary 
for  us  to  determine,  as  we  have  no  disposition  to  dispute 
the  truth  of  the  proposition.  Nor  could  Mr.  Hall  have 
been  led  into  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  we  did  dis- 
pute it,  unless  he  had  not  only  lost  sight  of  the  difference 
between  fellowship  in  the  invisible  and  in  a  visible 
Church,  but  also  confounded  the  literal  and  the  symholic 
uses  of  the  term  Communion.  We  do  admit  to  our  Com- 
munion, that  is  to  our  spiritual  fellowship,  fully  and 
heartily,  those  whom  we  have  reason  to  believe  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church  admits  to  his ;  and  what  is  more,  we 
liold  with  tliem  the  same  hind  of  Communion  which  loe 
sifj^pose  him  to  do.  With  those  He  admits  to  a  purely 
spiritual  Fellowship  with  Himself,  we  have  and  symbol- 
ize a  purely  spiritual  Communion.  With  those  whom  we 
consider  to  observe  correctly  his  will  in  the  ceremonial  or 
the  visible  part  of  Church  relations  and  worship,  we  sym- 
bolize our  fellowship  by  a  ceremonial  or  visible  union  in 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

5.  In  regard  to  what  is  urged  in  the  same  connection, 


NOT   PRESUMPTION.  181 

"  that  it  is  presumptuous  to  aspire  to  a  greater  purity  or 
strictness,  in  selecting  the  materials  for  a  Church,  than 
are  observed  by  its  Divine  Founder,"  we  need  only  re- 
mark, that  Visible  Churches  are  equally  founded  by  him 
with  the  Invisible  Church,  and  their  respective  terms  of 
membership.  That  these  terms  in  the  former  case  should 
embrace  what  we  know  is  not  always  embraced  in  the  lat- 
ter, a  public  profession  of  his  name,  is  so  obviously  neces- 
sary to  the  idea  of  visihility,  that  the  absurdity  would  be 
in  supposing  the  terms  of  admission  to  the  two  identical 
in  these  respects. 

Nor  does  it  follow  that,  according  to  our  plan,  "  greater 
purity  and  strictness"  are  made  requisite  for  the  member- 
ship of  Visible  Churches,  than  of  the  Universal  Church.  The 
fact  is  exactly  the  reverse ;  for,  while  a  credible  profession 
is  all  that  is  required  in  the  one  case,  a  right  state  of  heart 
is  alone  accepted  in  the  latter.  It  is  only  that  the  terms 
are  necessarily  distinct,  as  the  object  of  the  two  organiz- 
ations is  different.  Does  it  follow,  because  none  but  those 
who  are  citizens  by  birth  or  naturalization  are  permitted 
to  vote  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  that  we 
suppose  every  one  excluded  by  that  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, every  person  not  naturalized,  all  those  who  in 
Europe  are  permitted  to  vote  for  their  respective  govern- 
ments, are  not  equally  good  citizens  of  the  world,  and 
have  not  equal  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  political  sci- 
ence, with  each  and  any  one  who  is  permitted,  by  that 
clause,  to  vote  in  this  country  ?  Could  it  be  justly  said, 
^*  we  presumptuously  aspired  to  a  greater  purity  and  strict- 
ness in  selecting  the  materials "  of  a  republic,  than  was 
necessary  for  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  that,  by  passing 
naturalization  laws,  we  had  indicated  that  opinion  ? 

6.  But  the  most  obvious  method  of  exhibiting  the  fal- 
16 


182  COMMUNION. 

lacy  of  this  species  of  reasoning,  is  to  show,  in  such  a  case 
as  the  following,  the  false  consequences  to  which  it  would 
lead.  It  is  admitted  by  all,  that  under  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, such  was  the  connection  instituted  between  cir- 
cumcision and  the  Passover,  that  none  could,  without 
violating  the  Divine  command,  partake  of  the  latter  sym- 
bol of  belonging  to  the  Jewish  Church,  without  being  first 
circumcised.  But,  is  it  necessary  to  contend  that  circum- 
cision was  always  essential  to  salvation;  or  that  there 
were  no  individuals  in  the  world,  accepted  of  God,  and  in 
Communion  with  Him,  by  means  of  "  that  faith  which 
Abraham  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised,'^  (Rom.  4  :  12.) 
who  had  not  submitted  to  this  ceremony;  and,  conse- 
quently, could  not  partake  with  the  Jew  of  that  Paschal 
Lamb,  which  was  the  great  antitype  of  the  all-atoning 
Lamb  of  God? 

Unless  Mr.  Hall  would  be  prepared  to  deny  this,  his 
remarks  would  accuse  the  divinely  inspired  lawgiver  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  of  '^  presumptuously  aspiring  to 
a  greater  purity  and  strictness,  in  selecting  the  materials'^ 
of  the  Jewish  Church,  ^^than  had  been  observed  by  its 
Divine  Founder  in  adjusting  those  of  His  own.''  Surely, 
this  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  such  an  argument. 


CHAPTER  lY. 

ROBERT    hall's    FOURTH   ARGUMENT    CONSIDERED. 

1.  'The  exclusion  of  Pedobaptists  a  punishment,'  consirJered.  2.  The 
Lord's  Supper  a  family  feast.  3.  The  Evangelical  Alliance  excom- 
municate, on  Robert  Hall's  principle  4.  The  charge  of  excommuni- 
cating considered.  5.  Mr  Hall  would  excommunicate  all  Churches 
whose  invitation  to  Communion  he  declined.  6.  '  That  our  views 
make  the  approach  of  Pedobaptists  to  the  Lord's  Supper  criminal,' 
considered.  7.  The  difficulty  of  Mr.  Hall's  system  on  this  point 
considered. 

1.  ^^Tlie  exclusion  of  Pedohaptists  from  the  LorcVs  TabUj 
considered  as  a  punishment.^' 

Such  is  the  title  of  this  argument  in  favor  of  Mixed 
Communion,  and  it  is  supported  by  the  following  opening 
assertion.  ^'  The  refusal  of  the  Eucha^rist  to  a  professor 
of  Christianity,  can  be  justified  only  on  thiB  ground  of  his 
supposed  criminality,  of  his  embracing  heretical  senti- 
ments, or  living  a  vicious  life."  If  by  refusing  the  Eu- 
charist to  a  professor  of  Christianity,  is  meant  simply  our 
not  inviting  him  to  partake  with  us  in  that  ordinance, 
(which  is  all  that  we  do,)  we  might  reply,  by  simply  asking 
how  much  truth  there  would  be  in  the  assertion,  if  it  had 
been  applied  to  the  Passover  instead  ?  Or  would  our  Au- 
thor have  ventured  to  say,  that,  for  a  Jew  not  to  invite 
any  other  member  of  the  Jewish  nation  to  celebrate  the 
Passover  with  him,  could  be  justified  only  on  the  ground 
of  the  supposed  criminality  of  the  party,  that  he  must  be 


184  COMMUNION. 

esteemed  such  a  heretic,  or  a  man  of  so  vicious  a  life,  as 
to  have  forfeited  all  title  to  be  considered  a  member  of 
the  Israelitish  nation,  or  entitled  to  any  of  its  privileges  ? 
If  a  Jew  had  been  thus  charged,  might  he  not  appropri- 
ately reply,  that  his  not  inviting  his  fellow-Israelite,  did 
not  in  the  least  exclude  him  from  the  Passover,  or  pro- 
nounce him  to  be  no  child  of  Abraham ;  that  it  was  not 
necessarily  any  punishment,  and  not  so  intended,  but  that 
as  strictly  only  members  of  the  same  family,  or,  at  most, 
neighbors,  by  special  invitation  and  agreement,  were  com- 
manded to  celebrate  that  institution  together,  so  not  to 
extend  the  invitation,  indicated  simply  that  he  was  not 
regarded  as  one  of  the  parties  included  in  the  terms  of 
that  regulation  ? 

2.  We  regard  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  light  of  2.  family 
feast,  i.  e.,  a  Church  ordinance,  to  be  celebrated  together 
by  members  of  the  same  Visible  Church,  or  at  most,  in 
company  with  persons  whom  they  could  consistently 
receive  as  such  by  special  invitation.  There  is  no  more 
idea  of  punishmenty  in  not  inviting  others  or  partaking 
with  them  in  the  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  of  the 
Passover. 

3.  It  is  well  known,  that  of  late  years  a  society  has  been 
formed  of  various  denominations,  both  in  England  and 
America,  termed  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  formed  of  the 
TQembers  of  various  denominations.  We  believe,  it  has 
never  yet  at  any  of  its  meetings  celebrated  the  Lord's 
Supper.  This  has  probably  arisen,  more  than  anything 
else,  from  the  feeling,  that  it  would  seem  to  unite  them 
more  in  Church  relations  than  all  parties  could  agree  to, 
however  willing  to  unite  with  each  other  as  Christians. 
But  we  see  not  why  an  advocate  for  Mixed  Communion, 
would  not  be  bound  in  all  consistency,  to  rise  in  such 


NOT   A    PUNISHMENT.  185 

bodies  and  proclaim,  that  unless  they  were  prepared  to 
assert,  that  some  at  least  of  the  parties  uniting  held  to 
errors  of  such  a  nature,  as  would  "necessarily  exclude 
them  from  being  of  the  number  that  Christ  has  received 
to  the  glory  of  the  Father/^  it  would  be  contrary  to 
"  the  express  command  of  Scripture/'  for  the  Alliance  to 
omit  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist  together ;  that  "  such  a 
refusal  could  only  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  the  sup- 
posed criminality  of  a  portion,  at  least,  of  the  Alliance, 
that  is  of  their  embracing  heretical  sentiments,  or  living 
a  vicious  life."  That  the  exclusion  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
from  such  a  body  of  men  could  be  "  considered  in  no  other 
light  than  as  a  punishment/'  as  an  "  excommunication," 
and  therefore  as  a  declaration,  that  those  with  whom  they 
had  refused  to  commune  had  "  forfeited  their  right  to  spi- 
ritual privileges,  and  were  henceforth  consigned  to  the 
kingdom  of  Satan."* 

4.  No  more  erroneous  statement  can  be  made  as  to  our 
course  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  that  which 
declares,  that  "it  is  unquestionably  of  the  nature  of  a 
punishment''  inflicted  upon  all  others,  unless  it  be  that 
contained  in  the  next  paragraph,  where  it  is  supposed  to 
be  identical  with  "  Excommunication."  On  the  faith  of 
this,  we  are  charged,  in  regard  to  Pedobaptists,  with  "  pro- 
ceeding with  a  high  hand  and  attempting  to  terminate  the 
dispute  by  authority,"  after  which  we  are  earnestly  re- 
minded, that  "the  solemn  decision  of  a  Christian  assem- 
bly, that  an  individual  has  forfeited  his  right  to  spiritual 
privileges,  and  is  henceforth  consigned  to  the  kingdom  of 
Satan,  is  an  awful  proceeding,  inferior  only  in  terror  to 
the  sentence  of  the  last  day." 

*  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  341. 

16* 


186  COMMUNION. 

Tliis  is  all  very  true,  but  where  is  its  application  to  tlie 
case  in  hand  ?  It  should  he  remarked,  that  although  less 
in  degree,  yet  of  the  same  nature  with  the  error  of  un- 
warrantably excommunicating,  is  that  of  unjustly  implying 
such  a  charge  as  this  upon  a  fellow  Christian.  How  can 
it  be  pretended  that  we  excommunicate  ?  This  would  in 
the  mildest  terms  be,  to  separate  from  Church  relations 
those  who  had  once  sustained  them.  But  the  individuals 
in  question  are  those  with  whom  we  never  have  sustained 
Church  relations,  who  have  not  sought  them,  who  would 
not  be  willing  to  comply  with  our  terms  of  membership, 
and  who  have  agreed  upon  terms  of  their  own,  with  which 
they  know  we  cannot  comply.  As  we  hold  to  the  strict 
independence  of  all  Churches,  this  does  not  imply  any- 
thing like  excommunication,  or  even  unchurching,  on  the 
one  part  or  the  other.  If  it  did,  however,  it  would  equally 
imply  it  on  the  part  of  Pedobaptist  Churches,  as  of  our 
own.  Yea,  on  the  part  of  Mixed  Communion  Churches 
also ;  since  they  profess  that  their  terms  of  Church  Mem- 
bership are  so  "expressly  commanded,'^  that  they  will  not 
dispense  with  them,  they  are  as  much  the  means  of  excluding 
lis,  as  our  requiring  Baptism  is  of  excluding  Pedobaptists. 
But  in  truth,  no  Church  can  excommunicate  another 
Church,  nor  indeed  any  members  of  another  Church,  nor 
any  person,  not  of  its  own  body.*     Nor  is  it  the  duty  of 

*  This,  we  are  surprised  to  observe,  Kobert  Hall,  in  his  reply  to  Mr. 
Kinghorn,  attemps  to  deny  ;  perseveringly  charging  us  with  excommu- 
nicating, and  stating  that  he  "  will  not  descend  to  a  tedious  logomachy, 
further  than  to  remark  that"  'Mv.  K.  "has  fallen  into  an  error"  in  saying 
"  how  excommunication  can  take  place  in  [regard  to]  one  who  never 
was  in  a  Society,  we  have  yet  to  learn."  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the 
definition  of  excommunicate.,  in  such  dictionaries  as  Richardson,  Johnson, 
Walker,  and  Webster,  contains  the  words  to  "  f/ec^,"  to  "  eay^e^ ;"  j^et 
■who  would  think  it  possible  to  ex2)el  a  young  man  from  College  who 
had  never  entered?    (See  Keply  to  Kinghorn,  ch.  9,  p.  475.) 


RASH   JUDGMENTS   AVOIDED.  187 

a  Church,  presumptuously  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  all 
others,  and  pronounce  whether  they  are  or  are  not  true 
Christian  Churches. 

5.  What  is  essential  to  a  visible  Christian  Church,  and, 
when  a  Church  so  far  apostatizes  as  to  forfeit  all  claims 
to  the  title, — are  questions,  in  their  application  to  such 
bodies  as  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Greek  Church,  and 
many  others,  known  only  to  Him  who  searches  the  hearts  ; 
but  upon  which  no  earthly  tribunal  is  competent  to  sit  in 
judgment,  and  from  which  we  are  entirely  saved  the  un- 
pleasant necessity  of  making  a  decision  only  by  our  posi- 
tion. It  must  certainly  be  as  great  a  violation  of  Chris- 
tian Charity  to  refuse  to  commune  with  other  Christian 
Churches  upon  their  invitation,  as  not  to  invite  their 
members  to  commune  with  us.  Hence  it  has  always  been 
the  custom  of  Mixed  Communion  Baptists,  to  participate 
in  the  Eucharist  freely  in  Congregational  Churches.  If 
then  these  same  persons  refuse  to  participate  with  Epis- 
copalians or  Roman  Catholics,  it  must  be  because  they  do 
not  esteem  them  true  Christian  Churches ;  and  we  see  not 
why  they  must  not  in  every  case  decide  that  the  Church 
inviting  them  to  its  communion  holds  errors  of  such  a 
nature,  as  "  necessarily  exclude  them  from  being  of  the 
number  of  those  whom  Christ  has  received,'^  or  else  we 
are  "expressly  commanded,^^  for  aught  we  see,  on  Mr. 
Hall's  principles,  to  accept  their  invitation.  The  Presby- 
terians, we  believe,  have  undertaken  to  decide  for  them- 
selves that  the  Roman  Catholic  was  a  true  Church,  all 
through  the  dark  ages,  and  up  to  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, but  that,  since  then,  the  candlestick  has  been  removed 
out  of  its  place.  Unless  we  believe  that  our  Churches 
are  not  only  entitled,  but  bound,  thus  to  assume  the  pre- 
rogative  of  Deity,  and  sit  in  judgment  upon  each  body 


188  COMMUNION. 

calling  itself  a  Churcli  of  Christ,  (with  the  danger  on  the 
one  hand  of  ^  eating  and  drinking  with  the  drunken/  or 
upon  the  other  of  ^smiting  our  fellow-servants') — unless 
we  are  prepared  for  all  this,  Robert  Hall's  plan  is  utterly 
impracticable,  and  ours  the  only  consistent  one.  It  is 
true,  our  Author  seems  to  suppose  that  there  is  a  distinc- 
tion between  communing  in  other  Churches,  and  inviting 
the  members  of  other  Churches  to  commune  with  us. 
Speaking  of  the  Church  of  England,  he  says,  "  our  dis- 
sent from  the  Establishment  is  founded  on  the  necessity 
of  departing  from  a  communion,  to  which  certain  corrup- 
tions, in  our  apprehension,  do  inseparably  adhere ;  while 
we  welcome  the  pious  part  of  that  community  to  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Eucharist,  which  we  deem  unexceiDtionable ; 
we  recede  from  their  communion  from  necessity,  but  we 
feel  no  scruple  in  admitting  them  to  ours.  .  .  .  On 
him  who  has  not  discernment  to  perceive,  or  candor  to 
acknowledge  the  difference  between  these  methods  of  pro- 
ceeding, all  further  reasoning  would  be  wasted." 

Notwithstanding  some  danger  of  being  thought  to  pos- 
sess so  little  discernment  or  candor,  that  argument  would 
be  wasted  on  us,  we  confess  that  we  do  not  see  all  the  dis- 
tinction that  Robert  Hall  would  like  to  establish ;  espe- 
cially, since  he  aims  throughout  to  maintain  the  same 
terms  of  permanent  and  full  Church  fellowship  that  he 
does  for  occasional  participation  at  the  Lord's  Table.  The 
plan  he  proposes,  must,  as  he  admits,  if  carried  out,  do 
away  the  denominational  character,  of  every  Church,  so 
that  all  would  be  Christian,  none  denominational.  To 
refuse  therefore  to  commune  with  any  Church,  could  only 
be  justified  by  not  considering  it  a  Christian  Church. 
To  this  there  could  be  but  two  exceptions,  1st,  when  such 
was  the  mode  of  celebrating  this  institution,  that  some 


ANOTHER    CONSIDERATION.  189 

erroneous  practice  was  required  of  tlie  communicant  in 
order  to  celebrate,  and  2nd,  where  by  partaking  with  a 
Church  a  general  agreement  with  their  errors  would  be 
symbolized  by  so  doing.  This  last  would  however  imply 
almost  the  views  we  are  advocating,  i.  e.,  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  indicates  such  relations  between  those  uniting  in 
it,  that  the  errors  of  the  majority  are  considered  as  there- 
fore acquiesced  in  by  the  rest.  This  indeed  might  lead  to  a 
more  restricted  than  even  a  Church  fellowship  in  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

6.  There  is  another  consideration,  which   our  Author 
deems  so  important  that,  but  for  multiplying  divisions,  he 
would  have  treated  it  as  a  separate  argument.     '^Are  the 
advocates  of  Infant  Baptism,"  he  asks,  ^^  criminal  in  ap- 
proaching the  Lord's  Table?"     ^^Upon  the  principles  of 
our  opponents,  their  approach  is  not  only  sinful,  but  sinful 
to  such  a  degree,  as  to  communicate  a  moral  taint,  to  what 
in  other  circumstances  would  be  deemed  an  act  of  obedi- 
ence."    Against  this  he  argues  as  follows :    ^'  Whatever 
blame  we  may  be  disposed  to  attribute  to  the  abettors  of 
infant  baptism,  on  the  score  of  previous  inattention  or 
prejudice,  as  there  is  nothing  in  their  principles  to  cause 
them  to  hesitate  respecting  the  obligation  of  the  Eucharist, 
it  is  unquestionahly  their  immediate  duty  to  celebrate  it; 
they  would  he  guilty  of  a  deliberate  and  wilful  offence,  were 
they  to  neglect  it If  my  reader  be  disposed  to  gra- 
tify his  curiosity  by  making  a  collection  of  all  the  un- 
candid    strictures   which    have    been    passed    upon    the 
advocates  of  Pedobaptism,  it  is  more  than  probable  the 
charge  of  profaning  the  Lord's  Supper  would  not  be  found 
among  the  number."     He  admits  that  Baptists  are  not 
heard  "  to  breathe  a  murmur  against"   Pedobaptists  on 


190  COMMUNION. 

this  account^  but  maintaius  that  in  all  consistency  they 
ought. 

According  to  the  principles  we  have  laid  down,  there 
is  no  reason  why  we  should  "  breathe  a  murmur'^  against 
others,  because  they  take  the  Lord's  Supper  in  their  own 
Churches.  We  do  not  unchurch  them.  It  is  not  our 
duty  to  decide  for  others,  how  many  errors  a  religious 
assembly  may  hold,  and  yet  be  a  true  Church.  All  we 
say  is,  that  such  are  their  views  and  practices,  that  we 
cannot  pronounce  them  prepared  to  unite  in  Church  rela- 
tions with  us  ;  that  we  only  unite  in  Church  relations  with 
those  who  are  baptized ;  that  these,  not  being  baptized  in 
our  view,  we  cannot  unite  with  them.  If  we  err  in  mak- 
ing baptism  a  prerequisite  to  membership  in  our  Churches, 
we  err  in  company  with  Christians  of  all  ages.  The  not 
inviting  them  to  our  Communion,  does  not  pronounce  that 
those  religious  societies,  not  founded  upon  our  views  of 
Baptism,  are  not  Christian  Churches,  any  more  than  an 
Israelite  pronounced  all  other  families  beside  his  own,  in 
partaking  the  Passover,  not  true  Jews. 

7.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  infelicity  of  the  Mixed 
Communion  scheme,  that  every  individual  embracing  it 
must  be  prepared  at  once,  and  on  every  occasion,  to  pro- 
nounce against  each  Church  professedly  Christian,  or  else 
to  express  before  all  the  world,  the  Church  fellowship 
manifested  by  uniting  with  them  in  this  ordinance.  With 
regard  to  individuals,  the  case  is  worse.  Either  we  must 
be  prepared  to  exclude  any  person  whatever,  desirous  of 
joining  with  us  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  pronounce  that 
he  has  "  forfeited  his  right  to  spiritual  privileges,  and  is 
henceforth  consigned  to  the  kingdom  of  Satan,''  or  else, 
on  his  claiming  to  be  a  Christian,  we  must  be  prepared  to 


A   DANGEROUS   CONSEQUENCE.  191 

express,  not  only  our  confidence  in  his  piety,  but  our 
readiness  to  unite  in  full  Church  relations  with  him,  by 
celebrating  this  ordinance.  Yet  who  would  be  prepared 
to  do  this,  in  regard  to  all  Pedobaptist  Churches  or  indi- 
viduals, unless  he  had  a  greater  faith  in  infant  baptism 
than  even  the  Roman  Catholic  professes. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

ROBERT   hall's   FIFTH  ARGUMENT   CONSIDERED. 

1.  'The  impossibility  of  reducing  Strict  Communion  to  any  general 
principles,'  considered.  2.  The  Lord's  Table  to  be  governed  by  the 
same  rules  as  our  Church  Membership.  3.  Baptism  a  prerequisite 
to  Church  Membership,  a  rule  semper^  nbique,  et  ab  omnibus.  4.  Every 
visible  Church  must  have  some  visible  profession  of  Christianity. 
5.  Visible  Churches  aggi*essive  in  their  nature.  6.  The  *  general 
principle '  of  Mixed  Communion,  considered.  7.  The  distinction 
between  tolerating  imperfection  and  endorsing  it.  8.  The  distinction 
taetween  errors  fundamental  and  not  fundamental,  considered.  9. 
Baptism  formerly  deemed  necessary  to  salvation,  admitted  by  Mr. 
Hall.  10.  A  further  difterence  as  to  Mr.  Hall's  '  general  principle.' 
11.  Some  visible  profession  must  be  necessary  to  Church  Menber- 

,    ship. 

1.  "On  the  impossibility  of  reducing  tlie  Practice  of 
Strict  Comrnunion  to  any  general  ^rincijiile.^^  On  this 
subject,  Mr.  Hall  urges  the  following  :  "We  both  admit 
that  some  indulgence  of  the  mistakes  or  imperfections  of 
the  truly  pious  is  due,  from  a  regard  to  the  dictates  of 
inspiration  and  the  nature  of  man.  The  only  subject  of 
controversy  is,  how  far  that  forbearance  is  to  be  extended  : 
we  assert,  to  every  diversity  of  judgment  not  incompatible 
with  salvation ;  they  [the  strict  communionists]  contend 
that  a  difference  of  opinion  on  baptism  is  an  excepted  case.^ 
....  If  it  be  found  impossible  to  fix  a  medium  between 
the  toleration  of  all  opinions  in  religion,  and  the  restriction 

*  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  345. 


THE   CONSISTENT    GENERAL   PRINCIPLE.        193 

of  it  to  errors  not  fundamental,  the  practice  of  exclusive 
Communion  must  be  abandoned,  because  it  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  an  attempt  to  establish  such  a  medium. 
By  errors  not  fundamental,  I  mean  such  as  are  admitted 
to  consist  with  a  state  of  grace  and  salvation.  (Vol.  I., 
p.  344-5.) 

In  considering  this  section,  we  will  first  of  all  show  that 
our  practice  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  is  reducible  to 
a  principle  at  least  consistent  with  itself ;  and  then  venture 
to  inquire  how  far  the  same  can  be  said  of  that  advocated 
by  the  Author  of  the  Terms  of  Communion. 

2.  Whoever  has  attended  to  the  former  portions  of  this 
Essay,  will,  we  think,  be  at  no  loss  to  discover,  that  we 
have  all  along  attempted  to  reduce  the  rule,  by  which  we 
make  Baptism  a  prerequisite  to  uniting  with  our  Churches 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  a  general  principle,  simple  and 
obvious  to  the  last  degree,  (one  not  so  ambiguous  as  the 
diflference  between  errors  fundamental  and  not  fundamen- 
tal ;)  ^.  e.,  that  our  uniting  with  Christians  at  the  Lord's 
Table,  or  as  it  is  commonly  called,  our  "  Occasional  Com- 
munion,''  shoidd  he  governed  hy  the  same  rules  as  our 
Church  membership.  Upon  this  we  uniformly  act.  Those 
whom  we  invite  to  partake  with  us,  we  would  be  willing 
to  see  all  of  them,  just  as  they  are,  members  of  our 
Churches.  We  arrogate  not  the  superiority  over  those 
whom  we  invite,  of  refusing  to  accept  the  invitation  of 
their  Churches  in  return,  but  arfe  happy  to  reciprocate 
upon  perfect  social  equality  in  the  ordinance.  We  draw 
no  subtle  distinction  that  enables  us  to  "  recede  from  their 
Communion'^  while  pressing  ^Hhem  to  oursJ'  (Works, 
Vol.  L,  p.  479-80.) 

As  we  have   already  sufficiently  reasoned  in  regard  to 
this  principle,  and  as  it  is  so  clearly  based  on  the  simple 
17 


194  COMMUNION. 

fact  that  this  ordinance  is  a  divinely  appointed  symbol  of 
Church  Communion  as  before  explained,  it  is  enough  here 
that  we  have  shown  that  our  course  in  regard  to  it  is  based 
upon  a  consistent  general  principle. 

3.  But  if  it  is  intended  that  the  practice  in  our  Churches 
of  making  Baptism  prerequisite  to  their  membership,  is 
based  on  no  general  principle,  then  we  have  to  remark, 
first,  that  if  so,  we  are  at  least  in  company  with  all  Chris- 
tian Churches  of  all  ages,  (save  only  our  modern  Mixed 
Communion  brethren,)  who  have  ever  adopted  the  same 
rule  :  so  that  we  should  at  least  have  the  principle  of  sem- 
2'>er,  iihique,  et  ah  o^nnihus,  to  fall  back  upon ;  one,  if  not 
infallible,  of  no  little  conservative  value,  when  novel  spe- 
culations are  in  question. 

4.  But  this  rule  is  based  on  the  general  and  obvious 
principle,  that  every  visible  Christian  Church  mvstj  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  have  some  visible  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity, among  the  prerequisites  to  its  membership.  Ours 
is,  as  Robert  Hall  acknowledges,  the  Scriptural  profession 
prior  to  membership.  Any  other,  therefore,  in  its  place, 
must  be  admitted  as  an  exception,  not  as  the  rule. 

6.  And  further,  as  our  visible  Churches  are  organized 
by  their  Divine  Founder,  with  special  reference,  not  only 
to  their  own  edification,  but  to  the  carrying  out  of  an 
aggressive  spiritual  warfare  upon  the  world,  many  of  their 
requirements  of  membership  must  be  supposed  to  be  de- 
signed for  that  object.  Hence  some  things,  not  necessary 
for  personal  salvation,  are  properly  made  terms  of  the 
membership  of  a  particular  visible  Church.  And  as 
Churches  are  independent  bodies,  each  of  them  is  "  en- 
titled to  declare  for  itself  the  terms  of  admission  to  its 
Communion  -,"  and  this  both  as  to  those  things  it  deems 
essential  to  salvation,  and  those  it  regards  as  requisite  to 


ROBERT    hall's    PRINCIPLE.  195 

its  accomplishing  all  the  ends  of  its  existence  as  a  visible 
Church,  whether  on  account  of  its  peculiar  situation,  and 
duties  to  the  world,  or  the  universal  commands  of  the 
Word  of  God. 

Enough  this  in  reply  to  the  alleged  "  impossibility  of 
reducing  the  practice  of  strict  communion  to  any  general 
principle/'  Enough  to  show  that  every  part  of  our  course, 
in  this  respect,  is  reducible  to  principles  so  general,  ob- 
vious, and  fundamental,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
overturn  them  without  uprooting  everything  like  a  visible 
Church  on  earth.  Even  could  it  be  shown,  therefore,  that 
we  erred,  it  would  only  be  in  the  particular  application 
of  sound  general  principles ;  while,  from  the  very  independ- 
ence of  our  organizations,  we  do  not  thereby  unchurch, 
nor  "  infringe  upon  the  liberties  and  rights  of  others. '' 
(See  Presbyterian  Form  of  Grovernment,  Book  1,  ch.  1, 
sec.  1.) 

6.  Let  us  now  turn  for  a  moment  to  examine  the  nature 
and  consistency  of  the  principles  on  which  are  based  those 
^'  Terms  of  Communion  ^'  proposed  in  lieu  of  our  own. 

That  upon  which  Mixed  Communion  rests,  is  thus 
stated  by  our  Author.  ^'  When  the  necessity  for  tolerat- 
ing imperfection  is  once  admitted,  there  remains  no  point 
at  which  it  can  consistently  stop,  till  it  is  extended  to 
every  gradation  of   error,  the    habitual    maintenance    of 

which  is  compatible  with  a  state  of  salvation If 

we  impartially  examine  the  reasons  on  which  we  rest  the 
toleration  of  any  supposed  error,  we  shall  find  they  inva- 
riably coincide  with  the  idea  of  its  not  being  fundamen- 
tal ;"  or,  in  brief,  we  have  "  no  right  to  establish  terms  of 
Communion  which  are  not  terms  of  salvation.^' 

7.  If  in  the  above  extract,  by  "tolerating  imperfec- 
tion," not  denying  a  man  to  be  a  Christian  on  account  of 


196  COMMUNION. 

imperfection,  were  alone  intended,  we  should  have  no  con- 
troversy ;  but  when  by  tolerating,  is  meant  admitting  him 
,to  all  the  privileges  of  full  visible  Church  Membership, 
inviting  him  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  thus,  before  men 
and  angels,  affirming  our  belief  and  confidence  that  he  is 
in  all  respects,  both  a  Christian  and  duly  qualified  for  visi- 
ble Church  Membership,  it  is  a  very  different  matter. 
And  when  we  not  only  do  this  in  an  individual  case,  but 
lay  down  as  the  basis  of  a  full  membership  in  our  own 
particular  Church,  the  toleration  of  every  error,  the  ha- 
bitual maintenance  of  which,  by  any  one  individual,  is 
compatible  with  his  salvation,  and  that  with  the  full  right 
on  his  part  of  voting  in  favor  of,  and  every  way  sustaining 
it, — then  unless  a  Church  should  choose  to  think  almost 
every  error  "incompatible  with  salvation,"  it  must  be 
prepared  to  see  each  peculiar  and  cherished  doctrine  of 
Scripture  swept  away  from  the  number  of  those  to  be 
maintained  by  the  Church.  We  are  to  tolerate  in  our 
Churches,  we  are  told,  every  error  "  not  fundamental.^^ 
Thus,  we  must  admit  it  to  be  preached  in  favor  of,  and 
voted  for,  as  much  as  our  own  distinguishing  truths :  for 
"there  remains  no  point  at  which  we  can  consistently 
stop,"  short  of  this,  on  Robert  Hall's  plan. 

8.  Wherein,  however,  consists  this  distinction,  between 
errors  fundamental  and  errors  not  fundamental,  on  which 
the  whole  Mixed  Communion  system  is  essentially  based  ? 
If  we  mistake  not,  it  will  be  found  that  the  distinction 
lies  not  in  the  character  of  tlie  error ^  but  of  the  man  who 
holds  it.  So  that,  in  fact,  there  are  few  errors  that  can 
be  pronounced  to  be  fundamental,  in  all  cases ;  and  none 
that  can  be  said  not  to  be  so  in  any.  This  distinction  is 
precisely  like  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  in  regard  to 
mortal  and  venial  sins.     There  is,  indeed,  this  difi"erence, 


WHAT   IS   FUNDAMENTAL   TO    SALVATION.       197 

that  as  "  errors  "  may  take  a  wider  range  than  "  sins/*  it 
must  be  proportionably  more  difficult  to  decide  between 
those  that  are  fundamental  or  mortal^  and  those  which 
are  not.  If  nothing  is  to  be  thought  a  fundamental  error 
which  can  be  and  has  been  habitually  maintained,  even 
for  a  whole  life,  by  some  truly  pious  Christian,  then  there 
is  hardly  a  single  error  that  is  fundamental,  in  doctrine 
or  in  practice ;  and  the  Church  must  tolerate  everything 
most  pernicious  in  the  former,  as  '^a  diiference  of  opinion 
upon  points  not  incompatible  with  salvation,"  and  almost 
every  vice  and  crime  in  the  latter,  because  there  have  been 
pious  men  who  have  not  thought  it  wrong.  A  Church 
could  not  take  a  firm  stand  against  any  prevailing  sin,  be- 
cause doubtful  if  it  might  not  be  compatible  with  salva- 
tion ;  or  boldly  and  unitedly  advocate  any  duty,  for  fear 
of  offending  some  weak  brother.  The  same  faltering  and 
wavering  course  which  Mixed  Communion  pursues  in  re- 
gard to  Pedobaptism,  must  be  extended  to  Universalism 
and  Campbellism,  Popery  and  Arianism,  Polygamy  and 
Divorce.     (See  Part  III.,  ch.  2.) 

9.  Or,  if  to  escape  these  consequences,  the  opposite 
ground  should  be  taken,  and  every  error  be  deemed  fun- 
damental, in  doctrine  or  practice,  which  has  occasioned 
the  loss  of  any  persons  holding  it ;  then,  what  error  is  not 
fundamental  ?  Shall  any  one  venture  to  say  that  the  very 
point  of  a  willingness  to  submit  to  the  commands  of  Grod 
as  to  Baptism  itself,  may  not  often  be  the  very  turning- 
point  on  which  man's  salvation  shall  depend?  Robert 
Hall  himself,  so  far  from  denying  this,  says,  '^  I  embrace, 
without  hesitation,  the  affirmative  side,  and  assert  that  in 
the  Apostolic  age,  baptism  tvas  necessary  to  salvation,'^  al- 
though, in  that  connection,  he  says,  that  he  thinks  it 
needless  to  prove  that  "  it  is  not  necessary"  now.'^  (Vol. 
17* 


198  COMMUNION. 

I.,  p.  417.)  Elsewhere,  however,  lie  puts  the  case  of  a 
man,  knowing  it  to  be  his  duty  to  be  baptized,  but  from 
indifiference  to  the  will  of  Grod,  or  some  worldly  motive, 
declining }  in  which  case,  he  himself  would  refuse  him  the 
Sacramental  elements.  Here,  then,  is  an  instance,  in 
which  an  error  as  to  Baptism  is  fundamental,  even  now. 
Those  who  have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious,  know 
that  the  point  as  to  the  rejection  of,  or  surrender  to  Christ, 
generally  turns  upon  embracing  or  rejecting  some  appa- 
rently trifling  error  in  doctrine  or  practice,  that,  however 
harmless  in  its  consequences  to  others,  is  a  matter  of  life 
or  death  to  him  whose  spiritual  state  is  at  a  crisis.  It  is 
the  last  feather  that  turns  the  scale.  It  may  seem  a  para- 
dox, but  it  is  not  the  less  true,  that  the  error  which  costs 
a  man  the  salvation  of  his  soul  ever  seems  to  him  a  small 
one. 

Since,  then,  there  is  no  error  but  what  may  be  funda- 
mental, none  could  be  excepted  from  that  class,  according 
to  the  latter  mode  of  computation.  There  is  certainly  no 
error  that  may  not  be  fundamental.  The  refusal  to  be 
baptized,  may  be,  and  often  is.  Yet  is  Mixed  Commu- 
nion founded  essentially  upon  the  principle  that  it  is  not. 
In  truth,  the  distinction  between  errors  fundamental,  and 
not  fundamental,  is  an  unreal  distinction ;  and  all  calcula- 
tions based  upon  it,  must  ever  vary  according  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  him  who  presumes  to  judge  by  it,  and  will 
often  be  erroneous,  decide  whichever  way  he  will.  Yet 
this  very  distinction  is  one  of  the  radical  terms  of  that 
^^ general  principle"  upon  which  Mixed  Communion  boasts 
of  resting  itself.  Nor  is  it  any  small  infelicity  of  this 
general  principle,  that  it  is  not  only  erroneous,  but  essen- 
tially embraces  one  of  the  worst  errors  of  Popery;  one 
that,  uprooted  under  its  ancient  form  of  the  distinction 


INCONSISTENCIES   EXPOSED.  199 

between  mortal  and  venial  sins,  has  here  sprouted  anew 
with  a  deeper  root,  a  firmer  stem,  and  a  broader  leaf. 

10.  But  further,  were  we  to  admit  everything  that  Mr. 
Hall  asks,  in  regard  to  this  distinction  between  funda- 
mental and  non-fundamental  errors,  and  thai  an  error  in 
regard  to  Baptism  is  never  fundamental,  then  should  we 
still  have  to  inquire,  if  the  rest  of  the  '^  general  principle" 
were  correct,  that  in  our  own  visible  Churches,  we  are 
under  the  necessity  of  tolerating  every  gradation  of  error 
not  fundamental,  or,  (since  the  term  is  so  ambiguous  in 
its  general  application,)  that  "  does  not  necessarily  exclude 
those  who  hold  it,  from  being  of  the  number  whom  Christ 
has  received  V^  (p.  326.)  Now,  we  maintain  that  this 
general  principle,  so  far  from  being  true,  is  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  the  very  nature  and  objects  of  a  visible 
Church. 

To  suppose,  that  because  a  thing  is  not  universally 
necessary  to  salvation,  it  therefore  cannot  be  made  a  pre- 
requisite to  visible  membership,  can  only  have  any  speci- 
ousness  from  confounding  the  nature  of  the  Invisible 
Church  and  our  Visible  Churches.  But  as  the  latter  are 
intended  by  their  Divine  Founder,  to  carry  on  the  aggres- 
sive warfare  of  holiness,  as  one  chief  object  of  their  organiz- 
ation, it  must  be  presumed  that  those  things  required  in 
order  to  its  membership,  must  have  special  reference  to 
this  fact,  and,  consequently,  that  things  not  necessary  to 
personal  salvation  may  yet  be  properly  necessary  to  visible 
Church  Membership.  Yet  are  Robert  Hall's  ^'  Terms  of 
Communion'^  based  on  the  general  principle,  that  in  no 
case  can  anything  be  requisite  for  membership  in  a  visible 
Church,  that  is  not  in  the  Invisible. 

11.  But,  to  exhibit  this  in  a  more  obvious  and  unan- 
swerable point  of  view  still,  if  it  be  possible,  it  surely 


200  COMMUNION. 

cannot  "be  denied  that  the  very  constitution  of  a  Visible 
Church  must  demand  as  a  prerequisite  to  its  Communion, 
some  visible  profession  of  Christianity  :^if  not  Baptism, 
something  in  lieu  of  it.  Now,  as  this  profession  of  reli- 
gion, whatever  its  nature  be,  must  properly  come  after  the 
religion  itself,  it  cannot  be  identical  with,  nor  essential  to 
it.*  Consequently,  a  person  may  be  in  a  state  of  vital 
piety,  and  yet  not  fit  for  membership  in  a  Visible  Church. 
Many,  whose  piety  we  cannot  doubt,  delay  a  public  pro- 
fession for  years.  Some,  from  an  extreme  modesty  and 
doubts  of  their  acceptance.  The  world,  and  perhaps  the 
Church,  and  even  the  pastor  under  whom  they  sit,  know 
not  their  true  state.  Here  is  an  error, — one,  however,  not 
fundamental  in  these  cases, — even  that  of  not  confessing 
Christ  before  men.  But  would  it  be  right  to  admit  these, 
or  any  others,  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  into  a  perfect 
membership  in  a  visible  Christian  Church,  until  they 
had  first  of  all  made  some  credible  profession  of  having 
passed  from  death  unto  life?  That  would  destroy  the 
evangelical  character  of  our  Churches.  Such  are  some  of 
the  "general  principles"  upon  which  Mixed  Communion 
is  essentially  based.  Such  is  their  consistency.  Is  any 
one  prepared  deliberately  and  practically  to  adopt  them? 

*  See  Appendix  J. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ROBERT   hall's    SIXTH   ARGUMENT    CONSIDERED. 

1.  '  The  Impolicy  of  Strict  Communion.'  2.  How  far  policy  should 
weigh,  considered.  3.  Mr.  Hall's  statement  as  to  its  impolicy.  Eflects 
of  "party,"  considered.  5.  The  comparatively  rapid  '  extension  of  sci- 
entific truths,'  considered.  6.  Distinction  between  the  extension  of 
specidative  and  practical  truths,  considered.  7.  The  speculative 
preacher  of  Baptist  sentiments  described.  8.  The  Baptist  reformer 
described.  9.  The  question  at  issue  between  Robert  Hall  and  ourselves. 
10.  The  peculiar  power  of  social  organizations.  11.  Shall  the  p«wer  of 
the  Churches  be  applied  to  restore  the  obsolete  practice  ?  12.  Singular 
shift  of  Mr.  Hall.  13.  Practical  test  of  his  views.  14.  Comparative 
progi-ess  of  the  Baptists  in  England  and  America.  15.  Effects  of  Bap- 
tist sentiments  on  other  denominations  in  America  and  Europe. 

1.  The  last  consideration  wliich  Robert  Hall  urges  in 
favor  of  his  views^  is  entitled,  ^^  The  Impolicy  of  Strict 
Communion^'  It  is  but  just  to  remark  at  the  outset,  that 
he  is  as  far  from  mixing  up  prudence  and  duty,  or  sup- 
posing that  because  a  particular  course  seems  politic,  it 
must  therefore  be  right,  as  any  advocate  of  Strict  Com- 
munion could  desire.  It  is  only  where  it  is  acknowledged 
that  we  are  at  liberty  to  follow  either  of  two  courses,  that 
he  supposes  policy  rightly  to  be  consulted. 

2.  But  although  we  cannot  say  that  a  particular  course 
is  right  because  it  is  prudent,  the  course  which  is  right, 
so  generally,  not  to  say  universally,  produces  the  most 
agreeable  and  useful  ultimate  results,  that  this  fact,  where 
it  can  be  observed  on  a  sufficient  scale,  often  becomes  a 
test  of  no  little  worth  in  doubtful  matters.  Thus,  for  in- 
stance, the  amazing  effects  of  Revelation  upon  society  for 


202  COMMUNION. 

good,  form  one,  and  not  the  least  evidence  of  its  divine 
character  and  authority.  It  is  not  improper  therefore  to 
contemplate  the  comparative  effects  of  the  two  systems  of 
Mixed  and  Strict  Communion,  upon  the  promotion  of 
Baptist  sentiments. 

3,  Upon  this  subject,  Robert  Hall  remarks  in  substance 
thus,  that  ^^  whatever  retards  inquiry,  is  favorable  to 
error;  that  nothing  has  a  greater  tendency  to  obstruct 
free  inquiry  than  the  spirit  and  feeling  of  a  party,  since 
it  erects  its  peculiarities  as  a  standard  round  which  the 
adherents  rally,  and  which  it  becomes  a  point  of  honor  to 
defend.  Scientific  truths  make  their  way  in  the  world 
with  more  ease  and  rapidity  than  religious,  owing  to  the 
comparative  absence  of  this  combination,  and  because 
there  is  no  class  of  men  who  have  an  interest,  real  or 
imaginary,  in  obstructing  their  progress."  ^^The  infer- 
ence we  would  deduce  from  these  facts"  he  continues,  ^'is, 
that  if  we  wish  to  revive  an  exploded  truth,  or  to  restore 
an  obsolete  practice,  it  is  of  the  greatest  moment  to  pre- 
sent it  to  the  public  in  a  manner  least  likely  to  produce 
the  collision  of  party.  But  this  is  equivalent  to  saying,  in 
other  words,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  made  the  basis  of  a 
sect;  for  the  prejudices  of  party  are  always  reciprocal, 
and  in  no  instance,  is  that  great  law  of  motion  more  appli- 
cable, that  ^reaction  is  always  equal  to  action,  and  con- 
trary thereto.'  While  it  is  maintained  as  a  private 
opinion,  by  which  I  mean  one  not  characteristic  of  a  sect, 
it  stands  upon  its  proper  merits,  mingles  with  facility  in 
different  societies,  and  in  projDortion  to  its  evidence,  and 
the  attention  it  excites,  insinuates  itself  like  leaven,  till 
the  whole  is  leavened." 

We  do  not  know  how  such  a  plan  as  that  proposed 
might  answer  to  revive  an  ^^ex])loded  triUhj'  but  it  seems 


SECRECY   AND    OPENNESS    COMPAEED.  203 

to  US  not  unlikely  tliat  this  would  sometimes  be  the  most 
insidious,  and  therefore  effectual  way  to  revive  an  ex- 
ploded error,  or  propagate  an  imaginary  system,  that  the 
least  touch  of  experience  would  prove  fallacious.  Certainly 
it  would  not  by  such  a  course  have  the  same  scrutiny  and 
opposition  to  face;  its  merits  would  not  be  so  closely  ex- 
amined ;  and  it  might  in  some  way  be  connected  with  other 
feelings  and  interests,  than  those  strictly  belonging  to  it, 
so  as  to  obtain  a  currency,  which  its  own  merits  would 
never  have  secured.  It  is  thus,  for  instance,  that  Pusey- 
ism  has  been  propagated  in  the  Episcopal  Church.  Truth, 
however,  on  the  other  hand,  having  a  solid  basis,  can 
resist  opposition,  and  only  demands  vigorous  investiga- 
tion for  its  merits  to  be  fully  known.  The  efforts  of  its 
enemies  to  oppose,  will  only  lead,  first  to  its  discussion, 
and  then  to  its  dissemination. 

4.  True,  the  spirit  of  mere  party,  is  a  base  and  blinding 
thing.  But  while,  on  the  one  hand,  to  love  truth  only  for 
the  sake  of  its  bearing  upon  our  particular  party,  shows 
both  a  narrow  and  immoral  mind;  on  the  other  hand,  to 
form  a  party  openly,  and  exposed  to  the  fire  of  its  enemies, 
in  support  of  some  obsolete  truth ;  to  cheer  its  ranks,  and 
head  the  column,  and  lead  it  onward  through  all  dis- 
comforts, amid  the  frowns  of  its  foes,  and  the  lukewarm- 
ness  and  desertion  of  the  timid,  is  truly  noble.  Much 
that  is  decried  as  mere  party  spirit  is,  after  all,  neither 
more  nor  less  than  that  practical  courage  which  results 
from  a  consciousness  of  truth,  and  produces  changes,  the 
most  judicious  and  abiding.  It  prefers  to  encounter 
inquiry  and  opposition  at  the  outset,  rather  than  gain  cur- 
rency by  more  insinuating  means.  The  progress  thus 
affected  is  slow  at  first,  but  solid  and  progressive.  If,  by 
way  of  illustration,  we  should  compare  the  national  charac- 


204  COMMUNION. 

teristics  of  tlie  French  and  the  English,  there  is  infinitely 
more  of  this  spirit  in  the  latter  than  the  former  nation ; 
and  correspondingly  we  find,  that  the  political  reforms  of 
France  are  more  scientific  in  form,  and  brilliant  in  theory, 
and  remarkable  for  the  insidious  ^^ease  and  rapidity" 
with  which  they  make  their  way.  But  those  of  England, 
having  to  be  first  sifted  by  all  parties,  and  thus  brought 
to  the  test  of  past  experience,  are  the  most  durable  and 
progressive.  Hence  it  is  that  they  are  not  attended  with 
that  same  reaction,  alluded  to  by  Robert  Hall,  (Works, 
vol.  I.,  p.  354)  as  "equal  to  action,  and  contrary  thereto;", 
a  reaction  by  which  the  reforms  of  France  sweep  to  and 
fro,  at  the  most  rapid  rate,  over  the  whole  ground  between 
anarchy  and  despotism,  as  on  a  railroad  constructed  of 
human  bodies  and  slippery  with  human  blood. 

Brilliant  theories,  proposing  to  reform  the  constitution 
of  all  the  visible  Churches  of  Christ,  throughout  the 
whole  world,  need  at  least  as  much  sifting  and  testing  by 
practical  experience,  before  being  universally  adopted,  as 
theoretic  reforms  of  political  constitutions. 

Robert  Hall  was  himself,  it  is  well  known,  of  a  feeble 
organization.  Bold  in  speculation,  because  there  habitu- 
ated to  conquest,  he  was  yet  backward  in  all  that  required 
practical  energy  and  action.  Hence  it  was,  possibly,  in 
part,  that  he,  unconsciously  to  himself,  but  unduly  and 
improperly,  disliked  submitting  his  principles  in  regard  to 
our  distinguishing  ordinance,  to  the  sterner  test  of  making 
them  a  term  of  visible  Church  Membership,  and  sought  a 
more  "  easy  and  rapid  way  "  by  which  Baptist  sentiments, 
like  "  scientific  speculations,"  should  brilliantly  mount,  as 
rockets,  at  once  to  their  perihelion,  though  carrying  with 
them  the  materials  of  explosion  and  downfall.  We  wish 
rather  to  see  our  principles,  like  a  star,  in  some  remote 


A    TEST    OF   TRUTH   AND    ERROR.  205 

portion  of  tlie  lieavcns,  wliicli,  thougli  it  less  attract  the 
momentary  gaze  of  the  curious,  shines  calmly,  quietly  and 
eternally  above,  guiding  the  far-oif  mariners,  one  after 
another,  in  their  heavenly  voyage  over  the  stormy  deep. 

Every  conceivable  motion  of  mind  has  its  correspond- 
ing motion  of  the  body;  every  principle,  its  legitimate 
expression  in  action.  It  may  be  called  party  spirit,  or 
anything  else,  but  that  spirit,  which  impels  a  man  to  act 
out  a  principle  boldly  to  all  its  legitimate  results,  to 
remove  it  from  the  airy  region  of  theory  and  speculation 
to  the  terra  Jirma  of  practice,  is  one  of  the  most  noble 
and  useful  dispositions  that  can  actuate  any  man.  There 
is  nothing  more  dangerous  to  the  cause  of  truth  in  gene- 
ral, as  there  is  nothing  more  perilous  to  the  character  of 
an  individual,  than  to  hold  opinions  speculatively,  without 
reducing  them  to  practice.  The  most  decisive  test  of  truth 
and  error  is,  that  the  former  is  capable  of  being  acted  out 
to  all  its  legitimate  consequences,  and  can  never  lead  the 
party  doing  so  astray;  while  the  other,  the  further  it  is 
pursued,  conducts  only  to  the  more  complicated  and  gross 
inconsistencies.  If  that  shall  be  called  a  party  spirit, 
which  induces  our  Churches,  as  such,  to  make  use  of  their 
influence,  and  engage  actively  in  spreading,  (in  connection 
with  other  truths,)  Believers'  Baptism;  which  induces  them 
to  refuse  being  trammelled  by  subjection,  even  for  an  hour, 
to  any  compromise  that  shall  tie  their  tongues,  or  prevent 
them  from  using  the  whole  weight  of  their  influence  on 
this  subject,  just  as  earnestly  as  their  consciences  bid; 
such  a  spirit  is  right  and  proper  none  the  less.  But  our 
Churches,  as  such,  must  bind  themselves  not  to  meddle 
with  the  subject  of  Baptism,  or  make  use  of  an  iota  of 
their  influence,  as  an  organization  in  favor  of  it,  according 
to  the  plan  of  Robert  Hall.     Baptist  individuals,  but  not 

18 


206  COMMUNION. 

Baptist  Churches,  is  the  beau  ideal  of  Mixed  Communion- 
ism.  But  how  it  ever  can  be  a  stroke  of  policy  in  favor 
of  Baptism,  for  such  powerful  social  organizations,  as  the 
Churches  of  Christ,  to  resolve  not  to  favour  or  propagate  it, 
is  not  easily  perceived.  Enough  this,  in  regard  to  the 
charge  of  party  spirit. 

5.  In  regard  to  what  Eobert  Hall  says,  as  to  the  rapid 
extension  of  scientific  truths  compared  with  religious,  and 
which  he  attributes  to  "  the  absence  of  combination,  in 
there  being  no  class  of  men  closely  united,  who  have  an 
interest,  real  or  imaginary,  in  obstructing  their  progress '' 
—it  is  true  that  these  combinations  to  spread  particular 
opinions,  may  seem  for  a  moment  to  confirm  those  engaged 
in  spreading  them,  and  so  render  them  more  difficult  of 
conviction.  But  eventually,  there  is  no  way  so  certain  to 
let  all  the  world  see  that  an  error  is  an  error,  and  a  truth 
is  a  truth,  as  to  bring  it  to  the  light.  Free  discussion 
must  lead  ultimately  to  the  establishment  of  truth ;  but 
there  will  never  be  any  discussion  at  all,  when  all  the 
arguing  is  on  one  side,  and  no  party  thinks  it  worth  while 
to  oppose.  Combination  on  the  one  side  will  be  balanced 
by  combinations  on  the  other,  and  Truth  will  eventually 
turn  the  scale;  for  it  will  be  sure  to  win  the  greatest  num- 
ber of  adherents,  and  the  most  important  combinations. 
It  is  chieflj^  by  means  of  these  very  '^  combinations/'  that 
what  moral  truth  we  have,  is  spread  as  widely  and  rapidly 
as  it  is,  and  thus  forms  the  basis  of  advancement  to  higher 
degrees  of  light  and  knowledge.  The  more  "  easy  and 
rapid  extension  '^  of  scientific  than  moral  truth,  to  any 
degree  that  such  is  the  fact,  may  therefore  be  traced  to 
more  natural  causes,  than  the  absence  of  a  class  of  men 
to  oppose  progress  of  the  former. 

To  some  of  the  causes  we  will  advert : 


THE    TRUE    DISTINCTION   DEVELOPED.  207 

Scientific  truth  requires  only  a  lower  and  more  gener- 
ally diffused  class  of  mind  and  knowledge  to  be  appre- 
ciated, and  is  capable  of  a  more  exact  and  obvious  demon- 
stration. It  needs  only  correct  intellectual  perceptions; 
and  is,  by  the  aid  of  these,  more  easily  reducible  to  indis- 
putable facts.  The  latter  requires,  in  addition  to  the 
above,  coxYQct  moral  perceptions,  possessed  and  cultivated 
only  by  the  few.  Hence,  as  there  are  here  more  sources 
of  error,  the  progress  of  this  kind  of  truth  must  be  slower, 
to  be  safe. 

6.  It  is  proper  to  remark,  however,  that  the  chief  dif- 
ference, as  to  rapidity  of  adoption,  is  not  between  sa'en- 
tific  truth  and  moral,  but  between   scientific  or  specidattve 
truth  and  practical.     It  is  not  so   difficult  to  spread  moral 
and  religious  opinions  as  practices.    That  opinions  do  even- 
tually show  themselves   in  action  is  unquestionable,  but 
not  immediately ;  often  very  slowly.     Account  for  it  as 
we   may,  the   fVict  is  certiiin,  that  it  is  easier  to  change 
twenty  of  the  current  opinions  of  a  people,  than  to  reform 
one  prevailing  habit.     One  popular  preacher,  one  book 
full  of  curious  speculations  on  matters  of  religion,  will 
win  thousands  of  theoretical  converts.     Religious  ojmnous 
ebb  and  flow  like  a  tide,  or  like  a  current  at  sea,  which, 
sweeping  with  an  unseen  and  incalculable  force,  bears  the 
mightiest  navy,  with  its  ponderous  burdens,   easily  and 
smoothly  on  its  surface.     But  while  it  is  not  difficult  for 
a  popular  preacher  to  change  a  whole  congregation  from 
one  set  of  vieivs  to  another, — to  alter  a  custom,  whether  it 
be  the  posture  of  the  congregation  in  prayer  or  at  the 
Lord's  Supper,  to  change  the  order  of  services,  to  intro- 
duce or  exclude  an  organ  from  the  choir,  or  a  gown  from 
the  pulpit,  is  often  an  occasion  of  schism  or  revolution. 
7.  To  apply  now  these  remarks  to  our  present  case.     If 


208  COMMUNION. 

we  merely  wished  to  change  the  speculative  opinions  of 
the  Christian  world  upon  the  subject  of  Baptism,  to  make 
them  believe  that  nigh  two  thousand  years  ago,  Baptism 
was  administered  only  on  a  profession  of  faith,  and  always 
by  immersion,  then,  in  certain  circumstances,  Robert  Hall's 
plan  would  be  the^most  ^^ politic^'  way  to  revive  the  obso- 
lete opinion.*  Let  a  few  influential  and  popular  preachers 
introduce  it  occasionally  into  their  sermons,  never  contro- 
vert, but  exhibit  perhaps  a  vivid  picture  of  Christ  descend- 
ing into  the  plastic  tide,  the  swelling  water  of  the  sacred 
stream  yielding  to  Him  a  liquid  and  emblematic  grave. 
The  scene  of  Phillip  baptizing  the  Eunuch  might  even  be 
dwelt  on ;  and  the  preacher  occasionally  declare,  that  he 
would  even  baptize  those  who  wished  it  in  the  same  way; 
but  that  whatever  might  be  their  differences  of  opinion  or 
practice,  the  whole  subject  of  Baptism  was  one  of  indif- 
ference, a  non-essential ;  and  therefore  its  performance  in 
any  way,  or  its  total  neglect,  made  not  the  least  difference 
as  to  all  the  privileges  of  full  Church  Membership  or 
Ministry.  Few  would  question,  and  none  would  oppose, 
what  practically  affected  them  so  little,  and  without  oppo- 
sition or  discussion,  a  verdict  might  in  time  be  obtained 
in  favor  of  this  speculation  from  any  and  every  congrega- 
tion. If  few  had  sufficient  knowledge  to  assent,  fewer 
still  would  have  inclination  to  deny ;  so  long  as  it  was  con- 
ceded that  either  sprinkling  or  immersion  were  enough  to 
admit  to  full  Church  Membership,  and  they  were  permit- 
ted to  infer,  that  whichever  was  most  customary  and  con- 
venient should  now  be  followed,  to  avert  controversy. 
8.  But  if  the  object  proposed  be,  to  change  the  practice 

*  lu  Hct,  to  this  extent  our  views  ai'e  already  received  by  men  of 
science.  Any  standard  work  on  Cliristian  Antiquities,  Cliurch  History 
or  Encyclopajdia,  will  show  this.  j.  js.  b. 


THE   TRUE    REFORMER.  209 

of  Christians  in  regard  to  Baptism,  then  the  more  proper, 
candid  and  successful  mode  will  be,  not  to  profess  neutra- 
lity and  indifference,  but  openly  to  form  our  Churches 
upon  the  basis  of  their  being  distinctly  Baptist,  and  the 
members  pledged  to  uphold  and  spread,  and  act  up  to 
Baptist  sentiments.  Action  alone  produces  action.  It 
alone  produces  a  deep  conviction  of  the  sincerity  and 
earnestness  of  those  who  undertake  any  reform,  as  well  as 
of  the  importance  of  the  reformation  itself. 

The  preacher  who  would  produce  a  practical  alteration 
upon  the  subject  of  Baptism,  must  come  like  a  second 
John  the  Baptist,  not  with  an  effeminate  softness  and 
timidity,  but  with  a  certain  roughness  and  uncompro- 
mising sternness  to  those  who  are  indifferent  to  what  they 
know  or  might  know,  if  they  would,  to  be  the  will  of  God. 
He  must  be  prepared  to  stand  aloof  from  the  sympathies 
of  the  world,  and  even  of  the  religious  world.  He  must 
tell  men,  that  the  time  for  controversy  on  such  a  subject 
is  past;  that  it  is  really  a  very  plain  matter  for  him  who 
takes  the  Bible  alone  for  his  guide;  that,  prejudice  apart, 
few  things  can  be  more  clear ;  that  when  Grod  has  called  a 
man's  attention  to  the  subject,  real  doubts  can  alone 
remain,  either  from  regarding  the  opinions  of  Christians 
as  a  more  authoritative  guide  than  the  New  Testament, 
or  from  not  having  examined  the  matter  carefully,  and  in 
an  unprejudiced  manner;  either  of  which,  in  regard  to 
Baptism,  cannot  be  presumed  to  be  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence, even  as  to  visible  Church  Membership.  He  must 
tell  them  that  this  is  not  a  mere  speculation,  but  a  prac- 
tical matter,  one  that  requires  action,  reformation ;  that 
infant  sprinkling  is  not  Christian  Baptism;  that  those  who 
have  received  no  more  than  this,  have  never  been  ''buried 
with   Christ  by  Baptism;"    and  that  however  excellent 

lb* 


210  COMMUNION. 

their  piety  may  be  in  other  respects,  they  are  in  fact 
living  unbaptized. 

He  must  assure  not  only  Christian  individuals,  but 
Churches,  that  it  is  their  duty  as  such, — even  as  bodies  to 
whom  the  ordinances  of  Christ's  house  are  solemnly  given 
in  charge, — to  make  use  of  their  influence  not  as  individuals 
alone,  but  as  orgmiizations,  as  Churches,  to  promote  this 
reformation.  He  should  propose  to  form  Churches  upon 
the  primitive  basis,  each  individual  being  prepared  to 
exert  his  active  influence  and  example,  in  favor  of  restoring 
Baptism  to  the  position,  in  every  respect,  which  it  ori- 
ginally occupied. 

9.  The  question  at  issue  between  Robert  Hall  and  our- 
selves in  this  chapter  is,  in  substance,  neither  more  nor 
less  than  this ;  whether  the  former  or  the  latter  of  these 
preachers  would  be  the  more  successful  in  ^'  restoring  the 
obsolete  practice  '^  of  Believers'  Baptism  ?  Who  sees  not 
that  indifi'erentism  in  a  reformer,  never  yet  roused  the 
sluggish  and  torpid  mind  into  action.  If  the  question 
were  to  be  settled  by  a  mere  intellectual  acquiescence  in 
a  metaphysical  truth,  the  plan  of  the  first  preacher  might 
succeed,  in  those  few  cases  where  the  mind  was  already 
sufficiently  interested  to  pursue  the  investigation.  But 
where  most  are  too  indifierent  to  examine;  and  where  the 
course  of  duty  will  often  be  contrary  to  relatives  and 
friends,  to  the  religious  as  well  as  the  sinful  world ;  and 
will  perhaps  awaken  hostility  and  persecution,  as  the  prac- 
tice of  Believers'  Baptism  has  often  done;  then  one  would 
suppose,  that  a  decided  and  constant  course  in  the  Church, 
would  be  most  likely  to  give  firmness  to  the  timid  and 
resolution  to  the  wavering.  In  such  case  the  sympathy 
of  a  Church,  united  and  warmly  interested  for  their  suf- 
ferings, would  strengthen  them,  and  the  example  of  breth- 


POWER    OF    SOCIAL    ORGANIZATION.  211 

ren  who  have  gone  through  the  same  struggle,  would 
decide  them  in  favor  of  action.  It  is  an  unquestionable 
fact,  and  one  that  the  present  general  decline  of  Infant 
Baptism  in  Pedobaptist  Churches  abundantly  proves,  that 
it  is  not  so  much  want  of  light,  but  the  want  of  a  proper 
feeling  of  the  importance  of  living  up  to  the  light  they 
have,  that  makes  a  very  large  proportion  of  our  brethren 
in  Christ  live  without  true  Baptism ;  and  were  they  only 
to  step  forward  and  pursue  a  decided  course,  according  to 
their  convictions  upon  this  point,  it  would  occasion  such 
inquiry,  that  even  the  most  indifferent  would  be  awakened, 
and  the  most  doubtful  see  it  clearly.  To  accomplish  this, 
the  importance  of  personal  action  must  be  enforced. 

We  have  admitted  the  evil  of  a  mere  party  spirit.  But 
the  power  of  organized  party  action  is  immense,  and  where 
only  used  to  produce  truth,  proper;  and  not  only  proper, 
but  imperatively  demanded.  It  is  the  great  fulcrum  by 
which  a  truth,  downpressed  and  crushed  by  the  masses, 
is  elevated  by  its  few  friends  to  its  just  level.  Surely 
every  member  of  a  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  specially 
bound  to  throw  the  weight,  not  merely  of  his  individual, 
but  of  all  the  social  influence  he  possesses  from  the  organ- 
ization of  the  C-hristian  Church,  in  favor  of  an  ordinance, 
especially  committed  to  the  care  and  maintenance  of  the 
Churches. 

The  peculiar  power  of  a  social  organization  arises  from 
two  sources.  First,  thatjt  is  truth  in  action,  not  in  theory; 
an  opinion  reduced  to  practice,  not  resting  in  vague,  un- 
tested speculations.  Second,  from  the  combination  of 
eflbrt  and  influence  on  one  point,  many  persons  acting  in 
concert.  It  is  from  the  first  of  these  causes,  that  one 
drunkard  signing  the  pledge,  will  often  do  more  to  con- 
vince the  enemies  of  Temperance,  than  a  hundred  lectures 


212  COMMUNION. 

or  arguments.    It  is  from  the  second  that  in  a  Temperance 
Society  each  member  strengthens  the  other. 

11.  This  two-fold  power  of  social  organization  is  sanc- 
tioned in  its  proper  use,  and  was  indeed  originally  applied  by 
Divine  inspiration  in  the  formation  of  Christian  Churches. 
Baptism  is  the  peculiar  pledge  to  a  Christian  life,  adminis- 
tered by  the  Divine  command  and  sealed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Herein  is  one  great  source  of  power  in  every 
Christian  Church,  i.  e.  the  moral  force  which  it  possesses 
as  a  social  organization,  over  and  above  the  strength  of 
the  individuals ;  the  whole  bound  together  and  actuated 
as  one  living  body,  by  the  indwelling  presence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  nature  of  our  inquiry  at  the  present 
moment  precludes  us  from  asking  if  it  be  riyht  for  such  a 
body  as  this,  to  whom  and  to  whom  alone  on  earth  the 
ordinances  of  the  G-ospel  are  committed,  to  enter  into 
such  a  compact  of  indifierence  in  regard  to  one  of  these, 
that  ^'  the  appellation  of  Baptist  shall  not  be  so  properly 
applicable  to  Churches  as  to  individuals."  But  strange 
to  say,  the  question  we  have  to  settle  is,  whether  such 
withdrawal  of  its  whole  social  influence  by  the  only  body 
to  which  the  support  of  these  ordinances  is  committed,  is 
not  ^'politic,'"  as  the  most  effectual  means  of  ^'restoring 
the  obsolete  practice''  of  Believers'  Baptism.  This  is 
the  very  point  which  Robert  Hall  labors  throughout  the 
whole  of  this  section  to  prove. 

12.  It  is  indeed  singular  at  times,  to  see  the  shifts  to 
which  the  author  is  driven,  in  some  of  his  attempts  to 
support  this  position.  For  example,  he  paints  in  very 
strong  language  the  unfair  attacks  of  other  denominations 
upon  us,  and  speaks  of  "  the  prejudice  displayed  by  that 
class  of  Christians,  to  whom  we  make  the  nearest  ap- 
proach," but  attributes  all  this  to  the  want  of  Open  Com- 


COMPLAINTS    URGED    BY   MR.    HALL.  213 

munion.  He  complainS;  that  "  a  disposition  to  fair  and 
liberal  concession  on  the  point  at  issue,  is  almost  confined 
to  the  members  of  Established  Churches;'^  but  that  '^  our 
dissenting  brethren  are  displeased  with  these  concessions, 
deny  there  is  any  proof  that  immersion  was  ever  used 
in  primitive  times,  and  speak  of  the  extension  of  baptism 
to  infants  with  as  much  confidence,  as  though  it  were 
among  the  plainest  and  most  undeniable  dictates  of  Reve- 
lation/^ "  To  such  a  height,^'  he  proceeds,  "  has  this 
animosity  been  carried,  that  there  are  not  wanting  per- 
sons who  seem  anxious  to  revive  the  recollection  of  Mun- 
ster,  and  by  republishing  the  narrative  of  the  enormities 
perpetrated  there,  under  the  title  of  the  History  of  the 
Baptists,  to  implicate  us  in  the  infamy  and  guilt  of  those 
transactions.  While  we  must  reprobate  such  a  spirit,  we 
are  compelled  to  acknowledge,  that  the  practice  of  Exclu- 
sive Communion  is  admirably  adapted  to  excite  it  in  minds 
of  a  certain  order.'^* 

This  picture  is  drawn,  not  by  us,  but  by  the  champion 
of  Mixed  Communion.  \Ye  could  not  have  drawn  it. 
But  what  is  the  remedy  he  proposes  for  this  slander,  by 
which  he  complains  that  our  Churches  are  assailed  ?  To 
put  all  the  power  of  our  Churches  into  the  hands  of  those 
who  assail  us.  Only  let  these  persons  commune,  and  vote, 
and  manage  everything  their  own  way,  and  then  we  shall 
see  the  obsolete  practice  of  Believers'  Baptism  restored ! 
This  would  surely  be  like  giving  the  lamb  to  the  wolf  to 
suckle,  that  she  may  learn  not  to  devour  it. 

13.  But  it  is  needless  to  spend  time  on  such  theories, 
while  facts  invite  our  attention.  The  point  to  be  ascer- 
tained, is,  which  practice  is  most  favorable  to  the  spread 

*  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  356. 


214  COMMUNION. 

of  Baptist  sentiments, — open  or  strict  Communion;  the 
plan  adopted  in  this  country  or  that  proposed  by  Robert 
Hall? 

14.  If  we  should  decide  this  question  by  the  compara- 
tive increase  of  the  Baptist  denomination  in  Grreat  Britain, 
where  Mixed  Communion  generally  prevails,  and  in  this 
country,  where  the  opposite  practice  is  almost  universal, 
we  shall  find  such  facts  as  the  following :  There  are 
982,101  members  of  Baptist  Churches  in  the  United 
States  to  148,179  in  Great  Britain,  or  nearly  seven  to 
one.  Or  if  we  compare  the  number  of  Churches,  we  find 
in  the  United  States  14,078,  in  Great  Britain  1,881.  If 
we  contrast  the  number  of  ordained  Ministers,  we  find  in 
the  United  States  8,826,  in  Great  Britain  1,382.* 

This  comparison  of  present  numbers  appears  to  us  a 
fair  test.  The  rise  of  the  Baptists  as  a  denomination,  in 
England  and  in  this  country,  was  at  about  the  same  time, 
under  circumstances  even  much  more  favorable  to  their 
progress  in  the  old  than  in  the  new  country.  On  the  one 
hand  it  is  true,  that  the  more  free  toleration  of  religious 
opinions,  and  the  absence  of  an  Established  Church,  might 
seem  most  favourable  to  their  increase  in  this  country ; 
but  on  the  other,  the  comparative  smallness  of  the  popu- 
lation, until  within  a  few  years,  the  difiiculty  of  changing 
the  sentiments  of  a  nation  scattered  remotely,  the  poverty 
of  a  young  people,  all  make  it  a  matter  of  surprise  that 
Baptist  sentiments  should  have  spread  as  they  have.  Un- 
der God,  this  has  originated  in  their  assuming  an  indepen- 
dent and  uncompromising  basis ; — in  their  Churches  being 
formed,  not  on  Robert  Hall's  plan  of  Mixed  Membership, 
but  upon   that  derived  from  the  Apostolic   practice,   of 

*  The  figures  are  taken  from  the  Baptist  Ahuanac  for  1649. 


RESULTS    OF    ROBERT    HALL'S    SYSTEM.  215 

making  Baptism  a  prerequisite  to  membership  in  their 
Churches. 

It  might  at  least  have  been  expected  that,  owing  to  the 
disadvantages  of  the  Baptists  of  this  country  above  allud- 
ed to,  that  our  denomination,  here  at  least,  would  have 
been  far  behind  it  in  England,  in  point  of  Ministerial 
education.  The  reverse  however  is  the  fact.  Such  is  the 
effect  of  habits  of  self-reliance  and  independent  energy, 
fostered,  in  part  at  least,  by  the  principles  upon  which 
the  denomination  in  this  country  has  acted  in  regard  to 
their  Church  fellowship,  that  instead  of  five  Colleges, 
with  seventy-eight  students,  which  they  have  in  Great 
Britain,  there  are  in  the  United  States  fifteen  Colleges, 
with  1,409  students,  and  seven  Theological  Institutions, 
with  152  students. 

If  we  compare  the  active  piety  of  the  Baptists  of  Eng- 
land and  of  the  United  States;  while  owing  to  the  com- 
parative poverty  of  a  new  country,  the  greater  demands 
for  the  supply  of  destitute  sections  at  home,  and  other 
causes,  American  contributions  for  Foreign  Missions  are 
not  all  that  might  otherwise  have  been  expected  from  our 
large  number  of  members ;  yet  in  active  piety  and  bene- 
volence, fairly  computed,  they  perhaps  hardly  come  behind 
any  denomination  in  any  country.  That  inertness,  which 
is  the  characteristic  symptom  and  ultimate  destruction  of 
all  bigotry  and  narrowness,  certainly  fails  to  show  itself. 
Let  the  traveller  go  into  the  most  remote  settlements  of 
the  far  West,  and  as  he  passes  along,  he  will  every  now 
and  then  meet  with  a  Baptist  house  of  worship.  It  may 
be  of  rude  construction,  a  log  hut  perhaps,  but  this  is  as 
good  as  the  surrounding  houses.  Let  him  go  into  the 
cities  of  the  New  Continent,  and  he  will  find  costly  houses 


216  COMMUNION. 

of  worship,  which  in  point  of  comfort,  neatness,  architec- 
tural beauty,  the  respectability  of  the  worshipers,  and 
excellence  of  the  arrangements,  will  compare  favourably 
with  those  of  our  denomination  in  the  older  and  wealthier 
cities  of  the  Mother  Country. 

15.  If  now  we  consider  the  hold  which  Baptist  senti- 
ments have  taken  upon  the  mind  of  the  public  at  large  in 
this  country,  even  upon  other  denominations  of  religion; 
we  shall  find  the  most  striking  proof  of  the  fallacy  of 
Robert  Hall's  opinion,  that  it  is  only  by  mixing  in  all 
Church  relations  with  Pedobaptists,  that  our  sentiments 
would  ever  find  their  way  to  their  hearts,  or  even  attract 
their  attention.  The  practice  of  immersion  in  the  Metho- 
dist Church  has  become  quite  common.  The  disuse  of 
Infant  Baptism  by  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  mem- 
bers is  now  so  general,  and  the  decline  of  it  every  year 
becoming  so  much  more  rapid,  that  it  is  evident,  the  sys- 
tem is  fast  losing  its  hold  upon  the  faith  of  those  deno- 
minations. In  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Kentucky,  a 
section  of  country  where  our  mode  of  Baptism  prevails 
extensively,  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  has  jDublicly  ac- 
knowledged immersion  to  have  been  universal  (semper, 
uhique,  et  ah  omnibus)  in  the  earlier  ages  of  Christianity, 
and    has  strongly  urged  a  return  to  that  practice. 

Indeed,  there  is  hardly  a  denomination  in  the  United 
States,  that  has  not  been  powerfully  impressed  by  Baptist 
sentiments.  Even  the  vagrant  Mormons  have  found  it 
politic  to  institute  a  counterfeit  Baptism  like  ours.  If  we 
look  forward  to  the  future,  there  appears  every  probability 
of  a  very  general,  if  not  universal  spread  of  our  views  of 
this  ordinance,  both  as  to  its  mode  and  subjects.  Under 
God,  this  seems  to  have  been  brought  about  by  the  decided 


THE  TRUE  POLICY  SETTLED.        217 

stand  taken  by  the  denomination.  To  have  been  less 
uncompromising,  would  have  diminished  the  importance 
and  prevalence  of  Baptist  sentiments. 

The  question  to  be  discussed  in  this  chapter,  was  as  to 
Policy  alone; — which  was  the  most  successful  method  of 
reviving  the  true  but  obsolete  view  of  Baptism,  which  is 
characteristic  of  our  denomination  ?  We  conceive  that  no 
doubt  upon  this  subject  can  rest  on  any  mind. 


19 


CHAPTER  VII. 

REVIEW    OF    PART    HI. 

1.  Review  of  Robert  Hall's  first  argnment.  2.  Of  ths  second.  3.  Of 
the  third.  4.  Of  the  fourth.  5.  Of  the  fifth.  6.  Of  the  sixth.  7.  Of 
Mr.  Hall's  '  leading  principle.'  8.  Mr.  Hall's  leading  position  clearly 
traceable  back  to  the  fundamental  eiTor  of  the  Papacy.  9.  Counsels 
of  Sir  James  Mackintosh  to  Robert  Hall. 

1.  We  have  thus  examined,  argument  by  argument,  all 
that  has  been  brought  against  our  practice  in  regard  to 
the  Lord's  Supper  by  the  ablest  of  our  opponents.  We 
have  endeavored  to  omit  no  idea  advanced  by  him,  that 
could  affect  the  conclusion.  If  we  mistake  not,  every 
candid  reader  will  perceive,  that  his  arguments  utterly 
fail  to  prove  anything  against  our  principles  in  regard  to 
that  ordinance.  Indeed,  these  very  arguments  are  many 
of  them  capable  of  being  turned  with  the  greatest  force 
against  his  own  positions. 

He  urged  the  ohligations  of  hrotlierljj  love,  as  a  reason 
for  Free  Communion.  We  have  shown  that  the  word 
Communion  may  be  used  either  literally  or  figuratively; 
that  literally  we  do  hold  Christian  Communion  with  all 
whom  we  consider  Christians,  of  whatever  denomination. 
But  it  is  obvious,  that  no  argument  can  be  derived  from 
the  general  obligations  of  brotherly  love,  to  extend  the 
symbols  of  Membership  in  a  particular  Church,  to  those 
to  whom  the  relations  symbolized  do  not  apply.  On  the 
contrary,  Christian  faithfulness  and  candor,  indeed  a  com- 


AMBIGUOUS    USE    OF    TERMS.  219 

mon  regard  for  truth,  would  seem  to  dictate  an  opposite 
course.  In  fact,  the  whole  of  this  argument  derives  its 
plausibility  from  an  ambiguous  use  of  the  term  Com- 
munion. 

2.  He  urged  the  obligation,  to  receive  into  the  Mem- 
bership of  our  Churches  all  who  give  credible  evidence 
of  piety,  from  the  express  injunctioii  of  Scripturej  to  tole- 
rate those  errors  not  inconsistent  with  salvation,  on  the 
ground  that  Christ  had  received  those  who  held  them. 
We  have  shown,  that  the  injunction  to  toleration  in  ques- 
tion, was  expressly  based  on  two  conditions,  first,  that  they 
should  be  such  persons  as  Christ  has  received;  and  secondly, 
living  in  compliance  with  all  the  revealed  will  of  God,  in 
regard  to  the  points  as  to  which  special  forbearance  is 
urged.  Every  inference  drawn  from  such  passages,  must 
be  adverse  to  receiving  into  the  full  membership  of  our 
own  Churches,  those  persons,  who  are  avowedly  living  in 
the  neglect  of  so  conspicuous  and  plain  a  part  of  the 
revealed  will  of  Grod,  in  regard  to  Church  Membership, 
as  Baptism. 

3.  He  argued  that  Pedohaptists  being  a  part  of  the  true 
Church,  their  exclusion  was  on  that  account  unlawful.  We 
have  shown  that  there  is  here  an  ambiguous  use  of  the 
term  Church.  It  is,  indeed,  as  he  rightly  allows,  used  in  two 
senses )  either  to  denote  the  whole  family  of  the  redeemed, 
in  heaven  and  on  earth,  which  is  a  spiritual  body,  or  par- 
ticular organizations  of  Christians,  which  are  visible  bodies. 
From  membership  in  the  Invisible  Church,  we  do  not,  by 
thought,  word  or  deed,  exclude  any  Christians.  This, 
however,  is  quite  distinct  from  inviting  all  such  to  mem-  - 
bership  in  our  particular  Church,  which  is  a  local  matter. 
It  is  indeed  impossible,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  that 
a  visible  Church  should  not  embrace  at  least  some  things 


220  COMMUNION. 

in  the  terms  of  its  membership,  not  embraced  in  those  of 
the  Invisible  Church.  A  credible  and  visible  profession 
of  faith  must  belong  to  the  former.  This  being  essen- 
tially distinct  from  that  faith,  which  alone  is  essential  to 
membership  in  the  Invisible  Church,  makes  the  terms  of 
membership,  in  the  two  bodies,  necessarily  different. 
Hence  it  follows,  that  the  whole  of  this  argument,  being 
founded  on  an  ambiguous  use  of  the  word  Church,  or 
rather  on  confounding  the  terms  of  membership  in  two 
distinct  bodies,  falls  to  the  ground. 

4.  He  argued,  that  the  exclusion  of  Pedobaptists  from 
the  Lord's  Table,  could  be  considered  onJy  as  a  punish- 
ment, as  tantamount  to  excommunication.  Here  again 
we  detect  a  fallacy  in  principle,  as  well  as  in  the  use  of 
terms.  We  have  shown,  that  by  not  inviting  those  who 
are  not  members  of  our  Churches,  to  participate  with  us 
in  the  symbols  of  such  membership,  we  do  not  exclude 
them  from  participating,  and  least  of  all  do  we  excommu- 
nate  persons  who  never  belonged  to  our  body.  That  the 
non-extension  of  this  invitation  is  not  intended  as  a  punish- 
ment, and  has  no  more  right  to  be  considered  such  j  than 
the  non-extension  of  an  invitation  by  every  Jew  to  every 
other,  to  participate  with  him  in  the  Passover;  or,  than 
the  course  of  the  Methodists  in  regard  to  their  Love  Feasts; 
or,  than  the  course  of  all  other  denominations,  in  not  invit- 
ing to  their  Church  Membership  those  Christians  who 
are  unwilling  to  comply  with  their  articles  of  Covenant. 

5.  He  urged  the  impossibility  of  reducing  the  practice 
of  Strict  Coynmunion  to  any  general  principle.  We  have 
shown  that  it  is  reducible  to  the  very  simple  and  obvious 
principle,  that  our  ^'  Occasional  Communion,'^  or  partici- 
pation at  the  same  table,  should  be  governed  by  the  same 
rules  as   our  Church  Membership.     We  further  showed 


THE    GENERAL    PRINCIPLE    AND    POLICY.        221 

that  the  general  p  inciple  on  which  Mixed  Church  Mem- 
bership and  Ccmmiinion  are  together  based,  i.  e.  that  the 
visible  Churches  ought  to  tolerate  all  '^  those  diversities 
of  opinion  which  are  not  inconsistent  with  salvation/^  or 
that  the  "  Visible  Church  differs  from  the  Invisible  onli/  as 
a  part  differs  from  the  whole/'  and  consequently,  that  the 
terms  of  admission  to  the  one  were  properly  the  same  as 
those  of  admission  to  the  other,  overlooked  and  denied 
the  obvious  fact,  that  every  visible  Church  must,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  have  some  visible  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity among  the  prerequisites  to  its  membership ;  and 
that  any  other  plan  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  all 
Christians,  of  all  ages  and  of  all  climes,  and  one  impos- 
sible to  be  acted  upon. 

6.  He  urged  the  impolicy  of  Strict  Communion,  con- 
tending that  it  retarded  the  progress  of  Baptist  views  and 
practices.  In  opposition  to  this,  we  have  shown  that 
whatever  may  be  the  case  with  mere  airy  and  impracti- 
cable speculations,  that  the  energies  of  voluntary  organ- 
izations are  among  the  most  powerful  means  by  which  the 
erroneous  practices  of  society  are  reformed  and  obsolete 
virtues  revived;  that  to  the  visible  Churches  of  Christ 
the  custody  of  the  ordinances  is  specially  committed,  and 
consequently  the  duty  of  using  their  energies  and  influ- 
ence to  restore  them  to  their  primitive  position  and  lustre. 
We  have  shown  what  would  naturally  be  the  effect  of  such 
organizations  as  Christian  Churches  using  their  energies 
to  reform  the  abuses  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  to 
revive  the  primitive  method  of  its  observance.  We  have 
also  shown,  from  the  comparative  progress  of  the  denomi- 
nation, not  only  in  numbers,  but  in  everything  which 
evinces  true  denominational  prosperity,  that  where  the 
results  of  Mixed  Communion  and  our  own  practice  are 
39* 


222  COMMUNION. 

capable  of  being  fairly  compared,  tlie  results  show,  as 
clearly  as  statistics  on  the  largest  scale  can  show  anything, 
that  the  plan  of  Mixed  Communion  palsies  the  strength, 
and  prevents  the  growth  of  our  denomination,  and  even 
retards,  as  in  Great  Britain,  the  spread  of  our  principles. 

The  plan  which  we  follow  is  avowedly  the  primitive 
plan.  It  is  in  all  respects  consistent  for  ourselves,  re- 
spectful to  our  opponents,  and  best  calculated  to  subserve 
the  cause  of  truth ;  by  throwing  open  our  principles  in  re- 
gard to  Baptism,  without  reserve,  to  the  gaze  and  scrutiny 
of  the  whole  Christian  world.  By  such  means  they  would 
the  sooner  be  discarded  if  they  were  erroneous;  and  by 
these  means,  being  confident  of  their  truth,  we  feel  sure 
they  will  be  most  rapidly  extended. 

7.  With  regard,  therefore,  to  that  system  for  which  Ro- 
bert Hall  contended,  as  a  whole,  (and  especially  what  he 
calls  his  ''  leading  position,'^  i.  e.  that  '^  no  Church  has  a 
right  to  establish  terms  of  Communion  [in  the  Lord's 
Supper]  that  are  not  terms  of  salvation,'')  whether  this  be 
considered  as  a  theory  or  a  rule  of  practice,  a  divine  com- 
mand or  a  human  expedient,  it  is  novel,  visionary,  and 
quite  unsatisfactory.  While  we  must  admire  the  sincerity 
and  ability  of  the  author,  we  cannot  hesitate  in  pro- 
nouncing the  theory  he  proposes  a  sophism.  The  plan,  if 
it  were  applicable  to  our  denomination,  would  equally  re- 
quire the  most  complete  revolution  in  all  others;  but  as 
yet  no  other  body  of  Christians  has  for  a  moment  thought 
of  adopting  it.  That  it  is  based  upon  an  error  we  think 
incontrovertible.  At  the  same  time,  whether  we  consider 
the  exalted  sentiments  to  which  it  appeals,  or  the  bril- 
liancy and  piety  with  which  it  is  maintained,  it  must  be 
pronounced  the  most  enchanting  of  all  visions  that  are 
mere  visions.     The  practical  Christian,  when  he  remem- 


ASPIRATIONS    AFTER    UNIOX.  223 

bers  that  he  is  at  present  placed  at  an  appointed  post  of 
duty  and  of  usefulness  in  the  militant,  and  not  the  tri- 
umphant portion  of  the  Church,  is  forced  to  lay  these 
terms  aside,  as  incompatible  with  the  orders  of  the  great 
Captain  of  our  salvation ;  as  sublime,  but  unsuited  to  the 
present  state;  as  affording  elevated  contemplations,  too 
elevated  to  be  realized  on  earth ;  or,  to  express  ourselves 
as  briefly  as  possible,  he  is  forced  to  regard  the  whole 
scheme  as  a  splendid  fallacy. 

8.  All  the  most  pious  and  elevated  of  mankind  have, 
indeed,  sighed  over  the  divisions  of  Christians,  longed  to 
see  the  whole  family  of  believers  more  fully  and  com- 
pletely united ;  and  some,  perhaps,  have  formed  projects 
for  the  accomplishment  of  so  desirable  an  object.  Their 
visions,  however,  have  generally  subsided  into  an  antici- 
pation of  that  period  when  in  a  future  state  these  most 
elevated  aspirations  would  be  fully  satisfied.  But  the 
attempt  too  suddenly  to  realize  these  hopes  on  earth,  has 
led  most  who  have  attempted  it,  to  seek  some  shorter  road 
than  that  appointed  by  Grod,  and  to  overlook  and  overleap 
barriers  which  He  has  planted.  Who  shall  tell  how  much 
all  true  unity  has  been  defeated  thus  far,  by  the  errors  of 
the  very  persons  who  have  made  the  greatest  efforts  to 
promote  it  ?  Anciently,  it  was  sought  to  be  attained  by 
that  most  splendid  of  fictions,  as  it  lay  in  the  visions  of 
the  early  Fathers,  a  visible  Catholic  or  Universal  Church. 
And  yet  to  this  all  the  most  conspicuous  features  of  the 
Popish  system  are  easily  traceable.  It  would  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  show  that  the  fallacy  of  the  Eomish  plan  for 
uniting  all  the  members  of  the  Invisible  Church  in  one 
Visible  Communion,  is  traceable  to  the  same  original 
source  as  that  of  the  more  modern  one  of  Eobert  Hall, 
i.  €.,  confounding  the  terms  of  invisible  and  visible  Church 


224  COMMUNION. 

MemhersMp.  They  are,  indeed,  both  countei*parts  of  the 
same  error.  The  extremely  opposite  tendency  which  they 
exhibit  practically,  arises  thus.  The  ancient  theory  alters 
the  terms  of  Invisible  Church  membership,  to  make  them 
correspond  with  those  of  the  Visible.  The  system  of  Robert 
Hall,  commencing  at  the  opposite  point,  and  with  true  views 
of  the  only  prerequisites  of  membership  in  the  Invisible 
Church,  alters  the  terms  of  Visible  membership,  to  make 
them  coincide  with  those  of  the  Invisible. 

9.  It  is  dangerous  for  any  man  to  live  too  exclusively 
in  the  world  of  imagination.  ^'  Nothing,^^  says  Sir  James 
Mackintosh,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Robert  Hall,  ''  is  so 
difficult  as  to  decide,  how  much  ideal  models  ought  to  b 
combined  with  experience ;  how  much  of  the  future  should 
be  let  into  the  present,  in  the  progress  of  the  human  mind, 
to  ennoble  and  purify,  without  raising  us  above  the  sphere 
of  our  usefulness.'^  A  man's  writings  reflect  his  own 
character.  Nor  can  we  close  this  section  of  our  work 
better,  than  by  quoting,  for  the  study  of  those  whose  ten- 
dency is  to  frame  ideal  churches,  or  ideal  worlds,  the  judi- 
cious remarks  made  to  this  great  author  himself  in  regard 
to  the  tendencies  of  his  noble  mind,  by  perhaps  the  only 
human  being  who  knew  him  through  life,  with  the  ability 
rightly  to  estimate  his  exalted  character. 

"  I  exhort  you,  my  most  worthy  friend,"  he  says,  "  to 
check  your  best  propensities,  for  the  sake  of  attaining  their 
object.  You  cannot  live  for  men,  without  living  loith 
them.  Serve  God  then  by  the  active  service  of  men. 
Contemplate  more  the  good  you  can  do,  than  the  evil  you 
can  only  lament.  Allow  yourself  to  see  the  loveliness  of 
virtue  amid  all  its  imperfections;  and  employ  your  moral 
imagination  not  so  much  by  bringing  it  into  contrast  with 
the  model  of  ideal  perfection,  as  in  gently  blending  seme 


VIEWS    OF   SIR   J.    MACKINTOSH.  225 

of  the  fainter  colors  of  the  latter,  with  the  brighter  hues 
of  real  experienced  excellence;  thus  heightening  the  beauty 
instead  of  broadening  the  shade,  which  must  surround  us, 
till  we  awaken  from  this  dream  in  other  spheres  of  exist- 
ence/^* 

*  Robert  Hall's  Works,  Vol-  3,  n.  51. 


PART  lY. 

THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  REV.  BAPTIST  W.  NOEL  ON 
FREE  COMMUNION,  CONSIDERED. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

REASONS   FOR   REVIEAVIXG    MR.    NOEL's   REMARKS. 

1.  Recent  appearance  of  his  book  on  Baptism,  and  its  claims  to*  general 
regard.  2.  Shortness  of  the  section  on  Communion.  3.  Not  many 
new  ideas,  but  in  general  follows  Mr.  Hall.  4.  Yet  some  differences 
in  method  and  spirit.     5.  Analysis  of  his  remarks. 

1.  Since  the  preceding  pages  were  completed,  the  work  of 
the  Hon.  and  Rev.  Baptist  W.  Noel,  on  Christian  Bap- 
tism, has  been  published  in  this  country.  This  respected 
Author,  and  admirable  Christian,  devotes  the  second  Sec- 
tion of  Chapter  V.  of  his  volume,  to  the  discussion  of 
''  Free  Communion,^'  arriving  at  a  conclusion  exactly 
opposite  to  that  to  which  we  have  been  led.  The  deserved 
reputation  of  Mr.  Noel ;  the  extent  to  which  his  opinions 
will  be  circulated ;  the  earnest  Christian  spirit  which  guides 
his  pen;  and  above  all,  the  publication  of  these  sentiments, 
in  connexion  with  his  manly  and  decided  views  on  Bap- 
tism, make  it  appropriate  to  add  a  few  remarks,  showing 
how  far  the  principles  we  have  laid  down  apply  to  his 
arguments. 

2.  The  observations  of  Mr.  Noel,  on  the  subject  of  Com- 
munion, do  not  occupy  a  twentieth  of  the  entire  work, 
and  are  comprised  in  less  than  fifteen  pages — i.  e.,  pp. 
287 — 301  of  the  Harpers'  edition.  To  this  edition,  for 
convenience,  the  pages  being  the  same  as  in  those  of  Mr. 
Colby  and  Mr.  Fletcher,  reference  will  be  made  in  the 
following  remarks. 

20 


230  COMMUNION. 

3.  No  person,  who  has  studied  Kobert  Hall's  writings  on 
this  subject,  will  find  in  the  pages  of  Mr.  Noel  many 
new  ideas  or  illustrations.  He  makes  the  same  concessions, 
urges  the  same  arguments,  and  arrives  at  the  same  con- 
clusions, even  on  points  in  regard  to  which  open  Commu- 
nionists  disagree  among  themselves.  Consequently,  his 
section  on  Communion  has  far  less  the  air  of  his  own  in- 
dividual thinking,  than  any  other  part  of  his  work.  The 
problem  of  Christian  Baptism,  he  has  evidently  wrought 
out  for  himself;  he  has  "not  received  it  of  man."  But 
in  his  views  on  Communion,  he  has  followed  others. 

4.  In  one  or  two  respects  there  is  a  difference.  We  see 
less  of  that  lucid  arrangement  of  ideas,  which  so  emi- 
nently characterizes  Eobert  Hall,  and  makes  his  argu- 
ments perspicuous,  forcible,  and  easy  to  be  weighed.  On 
this  account,  it  is  a  more  arduous  task  to  reply  to  Mr. 
Noel  in  any  consecutive  order.  The  observation  which 
Mr.  Hall  made,  as  to  the  difficulty  of  answering  Mr. 
Kinghorn,  is  in  no  small  degree  applicable  here.  "  The 
perpetual  recurrence  of  the  same  matter,  the  paucity  of 
distinct  and  intelligible  topics  of  argument,  together  with 
an  obvious  want  of  coherence  and  of  dependence  of  one 
part  upon  another,  render  it  difficult  to  impart  that  order 
and  continuity  to  a  reply,  in  the  absence  of  which,  argu- 
mentative discussions  are  insufferably  tedious.'' 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  spirit  in  which  Mr.  Noel 
writes,  is  certainly  less  that  of  an  intellectual  combatant, 
and  more  eminently  that  of  an  earnest  follower  of  Christ, 
than  Robert  Hall's.  He  gives  the  reasons  which  have 
induced  him  to  embrace  lately  acquired  knowledge  of 
Christian  truth,  so  far  as  he  has  received  it,  prayerfully 
and   affectionately.     It  is  this  which    imparts  the  chief 


ANALYSIS    OF   MR.    NOEL.  231 

interest  to  our  Author's  character,  and  to  his  views  on  all 
subjects. 

5.  In  the  pages  we  are  now  reviewing,  Mr.  Noel  first 
states,  (p.  287),  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  question  at 
issue,  between  the  advocates  of  Free  Communion  and  those 
Baptists,  who  hold  the  same  views  in  regard  to  the  right- 
ful priority  of  Baptism  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  all 
other  Christians  entertain.  He  then  advances  two  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  his  own  opinions ;  one  from  the  nature 
of  things,  the  other  from  Scripture,  (pp.  288—290.)  The 
remainder  of  the  Chapter  is  devoted  to  the  consideration 
of  arguments,  sometimes  used  on  the  other  side.  (pp.  290 
to  301).  This  last  part  occupies  eleven  out  of  the  fifteen 
pages,  and  exhibits  but  little  system. 

We  will  follow  our  Author,  as  nearly  as  possible,  in 
his  manner  of  treating  the  subject. 


CHAPTER   I. 

MR.  Noel's  statement  of  the  question. 

1.  In  this  he  agrees  with  Robert  Hall — Regards  Pedobaptists  as  unbap- 
tized,  pleads  for  their  admission  as  such.  2.  Tendencies  of  this 
course — Mr.  Noel's  inconsistency.  3.  Concedes  too  much  to  the 
sincerity  with  which  Pedobaptism  is  upheld.  4.  Yet  in  effect  yields 
the  very  point  at  issue. 

1.  Asto  his  Statement  of  the  Question.  In  this  he  precisely 
concurs  with  Robert  Hall,  and  thus  narrows  the  point  at 
issue.  Pedobaptists  seem  usually  to  suppose,  that  where 
persons  smcerely  think  they  have  been  baptized,  it  is  the 
same  as  though  they  had  been.  On  the  contrary,  our 
Author  saves  much  trouble  here  by  admitting,  (p.  287) 
"Like  the  strict  Baptists,  I  believe,  each  person,  who 
has  been  merely  sprinkled  in  infancy  is  unbaptized,  be- 
cause the  external  act  of  Baptism  is  immersion,  and  that 
act  is  meant  to  be  a  profession  of  repentance  and  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  person  sprinkled  in  infancy 
has  neither  been  immersed,  nor  has  he  made,  through  his 
reception  of  the  sprinkled  water,  any  profession  whatever, 
of  discipleship ;  he  is  therefore  wholly  unbaptized;  audit 
is  regarding  him  simply  as  an  unbaptized  believer,  that  I 
advocate  his  right  to  a  place  at  the  Lord's  Table,  in  a 
Baptist  Church.^' 

2.  His  argument,  therefore,  would  lead  to  the  extinction 
of  all  Baptism,  as  a  term  of  Church  fellowship  or  Commu- 
nion, even  in  what  he  still,  (unlike  Robert  Hall,)  would 


TOO    MUCH    CONCEDED.  233 

call  a  '^Baptist  Clmrcli.'^  Indeed,  at  the  close  of  his 
remarks,  (p.  301,)  he  appears  to  deny  the  right,  to  require 
^^  other  terms  of  Communion  than  such  as  are  terms  of 
salvation,  and  to  consider  this  the  more  brotherly  course, 
demanded  by  the  plain  precepts  of  Scripture/^  Unless 
he  were  to  suppose  Baptism  essential  to  salvation,  we  do 
not  see,  how  Churches  formed  on  such  principles,  could 
be  in  any  sense*  ^' Baptist/^  But  it  is  not  our  duty  to 
reconcile  these  statements,  only  impartially  to  record  them. 
Churches  formed  throughout  the  whole  Christian  world 
on  such  a  basis,  would  contain  at  present  so  vast  a  numer- 
ical majority  of  Pedobaptists,  that  it  would  be  absurd  and 
arrogant  in  us  to  claim  them. 

3.  On  page  288,  however,  Mr.  Noel  concedes  too  much 
in  regard  to  the  spirit  in  which  Pedobaptism  is  upheld 
by  those  who  practise  it;  and  as  the  same  sentiments  are 
even  more  strictly  implied  and  asserted  on  another  page, 
we  notice  it  at  once. 

He  is  indeed  correct,  in  saying  of  all  pious  persons,  that 
they  are  the  '^  servants,  soldiers  and  friends  "  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  as  to  everything  beside  Baptism,  it  may 
also  be  the  case,  that  they  ^^  copy  his  example  and  obey 
his  precepts,"  (p.  288);  but  this  certainly  is  not  true  in 
regard  to  that  ordinance,  according  to  the  whole  tenor  of 
Mr.  Noel's  work.  In  this  respect  they  certainly  do  not 
"  copy  the  example  ^'  of  their  Saviour,  and  they  certainly 
do  disobey  his  precepts ;  some  by  severing  the  ordinance 
from  the  profession  of  faith,  some  by  substituting  sprink- 
ling for  immersion,  and  some,  like  John  Joseph  Gurney, 
by  treating  all  Baptism  with  open  and  utter  neglect.  Yet, 
on  page  294,  Mr.  Noel  carries  his  language  so  far,  as  to  de- 
clare, that  these  very  persons  (he  probably  has  special  refer- 
ence to  Pedobaptists)  are  admitted  by  the  Churches  which 
20* 


234  COMMUNION. 

practise  Free  Communion,  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
^'  believers  lolio  keep  the  commands  of  Christ ,  honor  Bap- 
tism, and  believe  that  they  have  been  baptized."  Does  a 
Quaker  honor  Baptism  and  believe  that  he  has  been  bap- 
tized ?  Or,  with  what  consistency  can  Mr.  Noel  say,  that 
he  admits  a  Pedobaptist  to  the  Lord's  Table,  ^^  because  he 
honors  Baptism  ? '' 

4.  Indeed,  unconsciously  to  himself,  h»  shifts  his  whole 
statement  of  the  question,  or  else  concedes  the  very  point 
at  issue,  when  he  says,  ''  If  indeed  to  admit  him  [a  Chris- 
tian] to  the  Table,  were  to  dispense  with  the  command  of 
Christ,  and  to  sanction  the  neglect  of  Baptism,  he  must 
not  be  admitted ;  but  this  cannot  be,  because  he  is  admit- 
ted by  the  Churches  who  practise  Free  Communion,  on 
the  ground  that  he  is  a  believer  ''who  keeps  the  commands 
of  Christ,  honors  Baptism,  and  believes  that  he  has  been 
baptized/' 


CHAPTER  II. 

MR.  Noel's  arguments  considered. 

I.  Argument  from  the  nature  of  things.  1.  En'or  in  illustration.  2.  Con- 
founds the  Visible  Church  with  the  Invisible.  3.  Assumes  identity  of 
qualifications.  4.  Pedobaptists  are  not  disowned  as  brethren,  but  as 
unbaptized.  5.  The  Lord's  Supper  belongs  to  visible  churches. 
6.  The  question  resolves  itself  into  this,  Is  it  the  duty  of  Chiu'ches,  as 
such,  to  uphold  Christian  Baptism  ? 

II.  Arguments  from  the  Scriptures.  \.  The  main  reliance  here.  2.  («.) 
John  13:  35,  and  17:  20,  considered.  3.  Nature  of  Christian  union. 
4.  On  whom  rests  the  blame  of  breaking  the  Visible  Church  fellow- 
ship. 5.  (&.)  Kom.  14:  1—7,  and  15:  7,  considered.  6.  Mistakes  and 
their  consequences.  7.  The  proper  grounds  of  Church  toleration. 
8.  The  proper  grounds  of  exclusion.  Gal.  5: 12, 1  Cor.  5:  11 — 13,  Rom. 
16:  17,  2  Thess.  3:  14,  compared  with  v.  6.  9.  Result— There  are 
other  terms  of  communion  than  such  as  are  terms  of  salvation.  10.  Prac- 
tical importance  of  this  principle.  11.  A  fundamental  distinction 
explained.  12.  (c.)  Mr.  Noel's  concessions ;— 1.  Of  an  instituted  connec- 
tion between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  2.  Of  the  close  Scrip- 
tural connection  between  Regeneration  and  Baptism. 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  Arguments  by  whicli  our 
Autlior  sustains  his  position.  They  are  two;  first,  from 
the  Nature  of  Things ;  and  secondly,  from  Scripture. 

I.  The  reason  for  Free  Communion  drawn  from  the 
Nature  of  Things.  "  It  is  according  to  nature  and  grace 
too,  that  the  sheep  of  the  same  flock,  under  the  same 
shepherd,  should  walk  together,  and  feed  together  in  the 
same  pasture,'^  (p.  288).  It  is  seldom  safe  to  argue  very 
closely  from  an  illustration.  If  it  were  allowable  here, 
we  should  reply,  that  in  precisely  the  same  sense,  in  which 


236  COMMUNION. 

all  evangelical  Christians  are  sheep  of  the  same  flock^  and 
under  the  same  shepherd^  they  do  feed  in  the  same  pas- 
ture. Do  not  all  the  various  evangelical  denominations 
of  Christians  feed  upon  the  same  spiritual  food^  upon  the 
same  great  truths  of  the  Bible  ?  Is  not  Christ  the  one 
shepherd  of  all  ?  What  does  our  Author  mean,  when  he 
speaks  of  sheep  of  the  same  flock  ? — Members  of  one 
Church  ?  But  the  term  Church,  in  Scripture,  is  used  in 
two  senses; — sometimes  for  the  One  Universal  Church, 
which  is  invisible;  sometimes  for  any  single  congregation 
of  professed  Christians,  in  the  habit  of  assembling  for 
worship,  and  for  the  maintenance  of  Christian  ordinances, 
as  the  Church  at  Antioch,  Smyrna,  or  Rome.  Mr.  Noel 
does  not  mean  to  say,  that  all  Christians  are,  or  ought  to 
be,  members  of  the  same  flock  or  Church  in  this  latter 
sense,  nor  that  they  ought  to  be  all  united  under  one 
earthly  pastor.  But  where  then  is  the  value  of  his  illus- 
tration ?  What  would  he  show  by  it  ?  Ordinances  belong 
clearly  to  visible  Churches,  not  to  the  One  Invisible  Church 
of  all  Earth  and  Heaven.  Christians  are  not,  and  are  not  in- 
tended to  be  all  of  the  same  visible  Church  or  flock.  They 
are  under  different  earthly  shepherds,  and  this  arrangement 
is  of  God  and  not  of  man.  Each  Church  is  an  indepen- 
dent body ;  and  according  to  our  Author  it  would  seem 
(p.  295)  that  each  ''  Church  must  be  the  ultimate  judge 
of  the  qualifications  of  all  who  seek  communion  with  it.'' 
2.  The  illustration,  we  believe,  would  rather  militate 
against  our  author's  views  than  in  favor  of  them,  unless 
it  should  be  first  proved,  that  the  terms  of  Invisible  and 
of  Visible  church  membership  are  necessarily  the  same,  so 
that  the  qualifications  which  are  sufficient  to  admit  us  to 
the  former,  entitle  us  without  any  thing  further  lohatever  to 
the  latter.     This  he  quietly  takes  for  granted  without  the 


WE    OWN    ALL    CHRISTIANS,    AS    SUCH.  237 

least  warrant,  and  contrary  to  all  just  views  ;  for  while  the 
disjjosition  to  confess  Christ  may  be  and  is  essential  to  true 
piety,  and  to  invisible  membership  ]  the  actual  confession 
of  Christ,  which  in  some  way  must  be  a  prerequisite  to 
visible  church  membership,  never  can  be  essential  to  mem- 
bership in  the  Invisible  Church,  since  properly  it  can  only 
take  place  after  true  piety.  To  assume,  therefore,  that 
membership  in  the  Invisible  Church  alone,  necessarily  im- 
plies a  perfect  title  to  all  the  peculiar  privileges  of  each 
Visible  Church  is  quite  unwarrantable  and  erroneous. 

3.  And  yet  Mr.  Noel  accusingly  asks,' (p.  288,)  ^^Why 
ought  not  Baptists  to  own  them  [evangelical  Pedobaptists] 
as  brethren  ?  All  who  are  the  servants  of  Christ  ought 
to  be  owned  as  such.  If  he  honors  and  loves  them,  it  is 
not  his  will  that  their  fellow-servants  should  dishonor 
them.  God  has  made  them  His  children  by  adoption  and 
grace,  and  cannot  be  pleased  to  see  that  while  they  are 
owned  by  Him,  they  are  disowned  by  their  brethren.^' 

4.  The  answer  to  such  an  accusation  is  obvious.  We  do 
not  disown  them  as  Christian  brethren.  We  do  not  own 
them  as  Baptists.  They  do  not  even  wish  to  be  so  con- 
sidered. All  Christians  we  are  willing  to  own  ^'  as  such,'' 
that  is,  as  Christians,  but  not  as  members  of  Baptist 
Churches. 

5.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  not  only  the  symbol  of  our  Com- 
munion with  Christ,  or  with  Christians  as  such,  but  also 
of  Visible  Church  felloicship,  among  those  who  thus  unite, 
for  as  we  have  said,  this  being  a  visible  ordinance  belongs 
to  visible  Churches  as  such,  and  not  to  the  Universal 
Church,  If  this  were  not  so,  we  ought  like  the  Boman 
Catholics  to  celebrate  Communion  Service,  (i.  e.  Mass) 
with  departed  saints. 

But  if  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an  ordinance  belonging  to 


238  COMMUNION. 

visible  Churclies  as  such — so  is  the  other  great  ordinance, 
Baptism.  Hence  it  must  follow  that  to  the  A^isible 
Churches  of  Christ  in  that  capacity,  is  specially  entrusted 
the  duty  of  upholding  Baptism  in  its  primitive  mode  and 
position.     If  they  neglect,  who  shall  preserve  it  ? 

6.  And  the  question  of  Communion  really  resolves  itself 
into  this,  whether  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Churches  of  Christ 
as  such  to  uphold  baptism.  If  Pedobaptists  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  perfect  membership  ;  if  there  is  to  be  no  distinc- 
tion between  their  churches  and  ours,  if  their  ministers 
are  to  be  ordained  over  Baptist  Churches,  and  Baptist 
Ministers  over  theirs,  as  it  may  happen ;  in  fine,  if,  as  Ro- 
bert Hall  contended,  "  the  mixture  of  Baptists  and  Pedo- 
baptists in  Christian  societies  should  be  such  that  the  ap- 
pellation of  Baptist  might  be  found  not  so  properly  appli- 
cable to  Churclies  as  to  individuals,^'  then  we  submit  that 
Baptism  would  thereby  be  declared  not  to  be  an  ordinance 
belonging  to  the  Visible  Churches  at  all.  Quakers  or  Pe- 
dobaptists might  be  the  only  officers  to  administer  it.  In 
fact,  it  would  be  obviously  improper  that  it  should  be  per- 
formed in  the  Church  in  any  case,  as  all  the  Church,  often 
a  majority  of  the  members,  could  not  unite  in  it.  But  if 
Christian  Baptism  is  to  be  driven  out  of  these  bodies, 
where  is  it  to  be  upheld  ?  If  not  by  their  Pastors,  by 
whom  can  it  be  administered  ?  The  Saviour  committed  it 
in  charge  to  his  visible  Churches,  and  to  them  alone.  If 
they  refuse  to  celebrate  it,  it  must  become  extinct. 

The  question  is,  therefore,  really  not  so  much  one  of 
Communion,  as  of  Baptism ',  whether  there  ought  to  be 
Churches  in  which  Baptism  is  administered ;  whether  the 
ministers  of  Christ's  visible  Churches  on  earth  have  any 
right  to  practise  or  to  preach  upon  Baptism.  In  admitting, 
(which  Mr.  Noel  does  frequently,)  that  there  rightly  are 


NATURE    OF    CHRISTIAN    UNION.  239 

and  ought  to  be  Baptist  Cliiircbes ;  in  being,  as  Mr.  Noel 
declares  himself,  ready  to  administer  the  rite  of  Baptism, 
as  the  Pastor  of  a  visible  Church,  he  virtually  overturns 
Robert  HalFs  theory.  Thus  much  in  regard  to  the  ar- 
gument drawn  from  the  Nature  of  Things. 

II.  We  now  turn  to  consider  Mr.  Noel's  appeal  to  the 
Scriptures.  It  is  on  this  that  he  seems  mainly  to  rely, 
and  on  this  we  also  are  willing  to  rest  the  decision  of  the 
whole  case. 

2.  (a.)  He  first  quotes  John  xiii.  35,  and  xvii.  20,  pass- 
ages in  which  Christ  enjoins  and  prays  for  the  mutual  love 
and  union  of  all  his  followers.  On  these  texts,  he  justly 
remarks,  that  "  their  union  must  be  so  manifested  by  bro- 
therly fellowship,  that  the  world  may  see  and  be  converted 
by  it.''  (p.  289.) 

3.  Our  first  remark  is,  that  the  Saviour  could  not  have 
intended  this  union  for  which  he  prays,  to  extend  so  far  as 
to  bring  all  Christians  into  one  Visible  Church.  If  he  did, 
the  Roman  Catholics  are  right,  and  we  are  all  wrong ;  for 
this  is  their  boasted  Unity.  But  it  has  ever  proved  the 
most  deadly  enemy  to  that  union  which  Christ  inculcated. 
The  Apostle  established  hundreds  of  distinct  visible 
Churches.  The  oneness  which  these  injunctions  and 
prayers  inculcate,  so  far  as  relates  to  Church  fellowship, 
must  be  a  felt  and  acknowleged  union  in  the  One  Invi- 
sible Church.  Now  we  are  as  ready  and  forward  as  other 
denominations,  to  testify  our  regard,  by  all  consistent 
means,  for  pious  Pedobaptists,  as  members  of  the  Universal 
Church.  We  unite  with  them  in  prayer,  in  great  moral 
and  religious  enterprises  as  freely  as  do  Methodists,  Epis- 
copalians, and  Presbyterians  of  the  Old  and  New  School 
do  amongst  themselves. 

4.  But  if  it  should  be  urged  that  it  would  add  greatly  to 


240  COMMUNION. 

the  obvious  union  and  brotherly  fellowship  of  all  true 
Christians,  if  they  were  to  celebrate  together  the  symbols 
of  visible  Church  fellowship ;  then  obviously  the  fault  of 
not  doing  so  must  rest  with  those  who  by  their  wrong- 
views  of  the  nature,  duties,  and  sacraments  of  visible 
Churches,  render  such  symbols  inappropriate.  The  blame 
cannot  fall  upon  those  who  "  keep  the  ordinances  as  they 
were  delivered/^  It  may  also  be  remarked,  that  Pedo- 
baptists  could  certainly  conform  to  our  mode  of  baptism, 
which  they  all  admit  to  be  valid,  and  which  would  do 
much  to  settle  this  difficulty;  but  we  could  not  adopt  their 
mode,  not  esteeming  it  lawful.  No  Pedobaptist,  therefore, 
while  unwilling  to  make  this  concession  to  charity,  can, 
with  any  show  of  consistency,  adduce  these  passages 
against  our  practice  in  regard -to  Communion.  Indeed,  if 
all  Pedobaptists  were  but  to  defei*  baptism  until  their  chil- 
dren were  old  enough  to  judge  for  themselves,  and  were 
to  adopt  our  mode,  this  source  of  vexation  would  die  away 
without  any  further  agitation, 

5.  (b.)  From  these  "general  passages,  Mr.  Noel  proceeds 
to  those  more  specific  injunctions  as  to  the  treatment  of  our 
fellow  Christians,  contained  in  Rom^  14 :  1-7,  and  15  :  7, 
"  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  4'eceiv.e  je/!  &c.  On 
these,  (p.  289,)  he  argues  thus:  "If  Jjikewise  the  Pedo- 
baptist has  not  light  enough  to  th^ow  off  the  Jewish  ordi- 
nance of  infant  circumcision,  but  must  revive  it  in  infant 
baptism,  he  is  not  to  be  repelled  from  comanunion  with 
those  to  whom  Grod  has  given  more  knowledge  in  this 
matter.''  AYe  presume  the  Author  means,  that  he  is  not 
to  be  repelled  on  account  of  infant  baptism;  a  question, 
in  regard  to  which  we  are  saved  from  the  necessity  of  any 
discussion;  as  it  is  not  on  that  account  that  we  decline 
receiving  Pedobaptists  as  members  of  our  Churche§,':but 


MISTAKES   AND   THEIR   RESULTS.  241 

simply  because  tliey  themselves  are  unhaptized, — a  very  dif- 
ferent matter. 

6.  Biitj  argues  Mr.  Noel,  "  we  are  called  to  receive  all 
Christ's  disciples,  notwithstanding  their  errors,  as  Christ 
has  received  us,  notwithstanding  ours.''  Rom.  15  :  7.  We 
reply  that  we  do  receive  them  as  Christ's  disciples,  and 
have  for  them  a  warm  and  sincere  Christian  fellowship. 
But  it  is  urged,  that  Paul  must  be  understood  here  to  en- 
join the  reception  of  all  such  persons  into  a  visible  Church 
fellowship.  Allow  this,  and  we  must  be  willing  to  receive 
into  the  full  communion  and  membership  of  every  Baptist 
Church,  Episcopalians,  Quakers  and  Roman  Catholics, 
members  of  the  G-reek  Church  or  other  Pedobaptists,  with 
all  their  various  notions  of  ecclesiastical  government,  modes 
of  worship,  their  saints  and  images,  crucifixes  and  beads, 
celibate  clergy,  masses  for  the  dead  and  prayers  to  the 
Virgin.  We  must  tolerate  all  these  things  in  our  Churches, 
unless  we  are  prepared  to  assert  that  there  are  no  true 
Christians  among  those  who  hold  them ;  and  we  must  not 
inculcate  Believers'  Baptism  in  the  Church  a  whit  more 
strenuously  than  infant  baptism,  or  than  any  of  the  above 
dogmas.  They  must  either  all  be  promoted  by  us  equally, 
as  majorities  happen  to  sway  the  scale,  or  all  be  neutral 
and  forbidden  subjects. 

T.  Still,  by  whatever  the  word  of  God  says,  we  must 
abide,  and  Mr.  Noel  quotes  Rom.  14 :  3.  "Let  not  him 
that  eateth  not,  judge  him  that  eateth,  for  God  hath  re- 
ceived him."  The  great  question  is,  whether  this  passage 
teaches  that  we  are  bound  to  receive  into  our  visible 
Churches,  every  one  of  those  whom  Christ  has  received  as 
members  of  the  Invisible  Church ;  to  receive  them,  whatever 
may  be  the  nature  and  tendency  of  their  errors,  and  what- 
ever the  results  which  might  ensue  from  countenancing  sys- 
21 


242  COMMUNION. 

terns,  subversive  of  the  faith  of  thousands,  though  perhaps 
not  excluding  from  salvation  every  individual  holding  them. 
This,  which  Mr.  Noel  seems  to  think,  "  demanded  by  the 
plain  precepts  of  Scripture,^'  (p.  301,)  we  do  not  hesitate 
to  assert,  finds  in  it  no  countenance  whatever,  and  least 
of  all  in  the  14th  and  15th  chapters  of  Romans.  Whoever 
examines  these  passages  will  find  that  the  Apostle  Paul 
proceeds  throughout  in  his  argument  for  the  reception  of 
those  scrupulous  brethren,  on  the  expressed  ground,  that 
they  were  complying  with  the  whole  revealed  vnll  of  God^ 
in  regard  to  those  matters  which  occasioned  the  doubt  as 
to  their  reception.  ^'  One  man  believeth  that  he  may  eat 
all  things,  another  who  is  weak,  eateth  herbs  ;'^  but  both 
fulfill  all  that  Grod  requires  in  this  matter.  ^'  There  is  no- 
thing unclean  in  itself,"  except  to  him  who  believes  it  so. 
^'  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another,  another  man 
esteemeth  every  day  alike,"  but  neither  in  any  manner 
violates  the  revealed  will  of  Grod.  Such  was  the  obvious 
train  of  the  Apostle's  thought.  And  hence  he  argued, 
that  since  the  individual  was  one  whom  God  had  received 
as  a  Christian,  and  who,  as  to  the  doubtful  point,  com- 
plied with  the  whole  revealed  will  of  God,  and  therefore 
clearly  received  His  approbation  in  regard  to  these  very 
matters,  he  was  to  be  received  in  the  same  way  by  the 
Church  at  Rome.  Here,  therefore,  were  two  conditions 
on  which  the  Apostle  argued  for  the  reception  of  doubtful 
persons ;  first,  because  Christ  has  received  them  into  the 
invisible  Church,  and  secondly,  because  they  have  com- 
plied with  all  the  requirements  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
regard  to  the  questionable  point.  It  is  difficult  to  see, 
how  from  such  a  passage,  the  admission  of  persons,  who, 
it  is  acknowledged,  violate  one  of  the  conditions,  can  be 
'^  demanded." 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    EXCLUSION.  243 

8.  Such  is  the  amount  of  the  argument  from  Scripture, 
■as  offered  by  Mr.  Noel.  At  the  close  of  his  remarks, 
(p.  300,)  the  author  does,  indeed,  introduce  other  Scrip- 
tural considerations,  thus.  After  charging  us,  (p.  292,) 
with  expelling  pious  Pedobaptists,  he  returns  (p.  300)  to 
this  topic,  and  thus  depicts  the  ^^odiousness^^  of  so  doing. 
."For,  consider,^'  he  says,  "the  real  nature  of  this  exclu- 
sion. Those  only  are  ordered  in  the  Word  of  God  to  be 
excluded,  who  are  heretical  in  doctrine,  (Gral.  5  :  12,)  who 
are  vicious  in  practice,  (1  Cor.  5  :  11,  13,)  who  are  schis- 
matical  in  temper,  (Rom.  16  :  17,)  who  injure  their  breth- 
ren, (Matt.  18  :  17,)  or  who  are  openly  disobedient  to  the 
commands  of  Christ,  (2  Thess.  3  :  14).'^  Now  we  might 
ask,  if  the  whole  of  Mr.  Noel's  book  on  Baptism  is  not 
intended  to  prove  that  all  Pedobaptists  are,  however  igno- 
rantly,  openly  disobedient  to  a  command  of  Christ.  But 
not  to  dwell  on  that,  we  join  issue  with  our  author,  on  the 
fact  which  he  asserts.  The  passages  he  quotes,  and  the 
remarks  he  makes,  do  not  fairly  exhibit  the  only  ground 
on  which,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  persons  were 
to  be  excluded  from  the  fellowship  of  a  Visible  Church ; 
unless,  indeed,  the  last  specification  is  intended  to  include 
every  departure,  however  trifling,  from  the  revealed  will 
of  God.  If  2  Thess.  3  : 6,  had  been  referred  to,  as  well 
as  2  Thess.  3  :  14,  it  would  have  been  but  proper.  "  Now 
we  command  you  brethren,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother 
who  icalketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  traditions  which 
he  received  of  us."  From  verses  8  and  10,  we  learn  that 
idlers  and  husyhodies,  for  example,  were  to  be  excluded. 
This  passage  has  been  so  commonly  alluded  to,  in  this  con- 
nection, that  we  are  surprised  our  Author  should  not  have 
noticed  it.  While  it  is,  therefore,  unquestionably  the  fact  that 


244  COMMUNION. 

persons  of  immoral  lives,  and  guilty  of  such  crimes  as  ex- 
clude men  from  all  hope  of  heaven,  are  to  be  separated 
from  the  Church ;  yet  it  is  also  true  that  errors,  not  in- 
volving such  fearful  and  eternal  consequences,  hut  subver- 
sive of  Church  discipline  or  order,  may  form  a  sufficient 
reason  for  exclusion  from  a  Visible  Church.  The  inter- 
ests of  the  Society,  as  a  whole,  and  not  those  alone  of  the 
erroneous  individual,  are  to  be  considered  in  this  matter. 
How  then  can  such  Scripture,  fairly  weighed,  be  urged  as 
proof  that  "  all  true  believers  are  to  be  admitted  to  Com- 
munion ''  with  us, — or  that  we  have  a  right  to  demand 
"no  other  terms  of  Communion  than  such  as  are  terms 
of  salvation.'^  It  might  as  well  be  contended  that  in  an 
army  no  man  should  be  excluded  from  the  ranks,  who  was 
a  good,  pious  man,  though  he  might  be  destitute  of  cou- 
rage, discipline,  or  strength. 

9.  It  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  that  their  views  of  Bap- 
tism have  made  Baptists  the  only  denomination  in  all 
Christendom,  that  has  uniformly  considered  a  credible 
profession  of  piety,  a  prerequisite  to  full  Communion  and 
Church  Membership.  Those  bodies  of  Christians  that 
now  uphold  this  view,  are  much  indebted  to  them  for  its 
preservation,  vitally  important  as  it  is  to  evangelical  piety. 
Infant  Baptism  may  be  merely  an  insipid  and  harmless 
thing  in  individual  cases ;  but  as  a  system,  its  tendency  is 
to  break  down  that  great  bulwark  of  Christian  piety  in  a 
converted  Church  Membership,  and  even  a  converted  min- 
istry.* This  cannot  be  a  matter  of  indifference,  therefore, 
in  the  constitution  of  our  Churches,  much  less  in  the  offi- 
cial character  of  Church  Officers. 

10.  Other  evangelical  Christians  possess  a  vast  numerical 

*  ppendix  M. 


A    FUNDAMENTAL    DISTINCTION.  245 

majority  over  persons  of  Baptist  sentiments.  To  tolerate 
the  various  opinions  of  all  these,  must  eventually  break 
down  those  distinctive  features  of  primitive  doctrine,  that 
have  enabled  us  to  do  good  to  the  world,  to  other  Churches, 
or  even  to  maintain  a  simple  existence.  It  would  prevent 
Baptism  from  ever  being  treated  as  a  Church  ordinance, 
and  alter  our  form  of  government  and  mode  of  worship, 
according  to  the  caprice  of  fluctuating  majorities. 

11.  But  we  have  one  further  and  more  fundamental  re- 
mark in  regard  to  the  passages  quoted  by  Mr.  Noel,  as  show- 
ing who  ought  and  who  ought  not  to  be  expelled  from  the 
Church.  There  is  a  vast  deal  of  difference  between  ex- 
pelling persons  once  regularly  received  into  any  voluntary 
society,  and  not  being  willing  to  admit  them  to  member- 
ship. The  former  can  only  be  done  on  the  ground  of 
some  change  on  their  part ;  usually  some  grave  overt  act ; 
but  negative  considerations,  and  even  a  simple  want  of 
sufficient  favorable  evidence,  fully  justify  the  latter  as  a 
precautionary  measure.  Now  we  never  expel,  or  in  that 
sense  exclude  any  persons  for  not  being  baptized ;  they 
never  being  members  of  our  Churches.  It  is  conceded  by 
all,  that  in  this  we  act  precisely  as  did  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians. They  never  admitted  the  unbaptized  into  their 
Churches.  Now  it  is  doubly  unfair  to  charge  us  with  ex- 
pelling persons  because  we  decline  to  admit  them,  and 
to  turn  round  and  say,  the  Apostles  never  excluded,  ex- 
cept for  heretical  doctrine,  vicious  practice,  schismatical 
temper,  &c.  The  answer  is  obvious  ',  the  Apostles  never 
had  occasion  to  expel  for  any  but  these  things,  because 
they  took  precautionary  measures,  and  never  deliberately 
received  in  those  who  were  doubtful  characters.  But  if 
the  word  exclude  is  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  declining  to 
receive,  then  the  Apostles  did  exclude  for  the  simple  want 
21* 


246  COMMUNION. 

of  baptism,  just  as  we  do ;    and  this  should  have  been 
added  to  Mr.  Noel's  list  of  causes. 

12.  (c.)  We  have  thus  considered  the  whole  amount  of 
Mr.  Noel's  argument,  drawn  from  Scrijjture,  upon  which  he 
chiefly  relies.  But  we  may  here  notice  some  concessions 
which  occur  in  the  course  of  the  work,  as  to  the  teachings 
of  the  Word  of  Grod,  on  the  connection  between  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  On  pp.  280,  281,  he  admits  and 
urges  that,  "As  there  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  any  person  who  was  converted  to  Christ,  after  he 
commissioned  his  disciples  to  baptize,  coming  to  the  Lord's 
Table  unbaptized,  a  person  who  should  do  so  now,  would 
place  himself  in  a  situation  unlike  that  of  all  the  Chris- 
tians during  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  safer  to 
conform  to  the  Apostolic  custom,  and  to  attend  the  Lord's 
Table  as  baptized,  rather  than  as  unbaptized.  A  person 
sprinkled  in  infancy  may,  indeed,  have  professed  his  faith 
in  Christ  by  coming  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  in  other 
ways,  but  he  has  never  made  a  baptismal  profession  of 
faith,  according  to  Christ's  commands,  both  implied  and 
expressed.  Matt.  28  :  19 ;  Mark  16  :  16 ;  John  3:5;  Acts 
2:38."  He  even  admits,  (p.  292,)  that  there  is  an  insti- 
tuted connection  between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
"  That  there  is  an  instituted  connection  between  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supj^er,  I  freely  admit,  and  it  is  no  less 
clear  that  after  the  institution  of  Baptism  by  our  Lord, 
no  person  who  refused  to  be  baptized  was  ever  admitted 
in  any  Christian  Church  to  that  Supper."  We  will  here- 
after notice  the  special  analogy  by  which  he  apologizes  for 
a  departure  from  this  rule.  To  us,  it  appears,  that  in  ad- 
mitting an  "  instituted  connection,"  he  admits  everything. 
For  an  instituted  connection  must  mean  just  the  opposite 
of  an  accidental  connection.  The  word  from  in  and  statuere 


MR.    NOEL'S    CONCESSIONS.  247 

has  primary  reference  to  laws,  which  are  said  to  be  insti- 
tuted or  in-statuted — fixed,  made  to  stand,  ^^  established/' 
^^ enacted/'  '^prescribed/'  '^  appointed."  (See  Webster's 
and  Richardson's  Dictionaries,  and  Crabbe's  Synonymes.) 
If,  then,  the  connection  between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  not  an  accidental  one,  but  one  enacted,  in-s'a- 
tuted  by  the  very  Head  and  Lawgiver  of  the  Church,  into 
the  laws  of  administering  these  ordinances,  what  room  is 
there  for  further  argument  as  to  inviting  those  to  partake 
with  us  in  the  second  ordinance,  who  have  not  and  never 
intend  to  partake  of  the  first  ?  The  only  question  that 
could  be  raised,  is,  whether  in  a  Christian  Church,  we  are 
bound  to  be  governed  by  the  laws  of  Christ. 

13.  To  prove  still  further  how  freely  Mr.  Noel  concedes 
this  instituted  connection  between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  how  strong  a  hold  it  has  obtained  over  his 
mind,  we  quote  from  the  published  account  of  his  address 
at  the  water's  edge,  which  has  every  appearance  of  being 
verbatim.  In  giving  his  reasons  for  submitting  to  Bap- 
tism, he  is  represented  to  have  said :  ''  In  the  first  place, 
there  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testament,  of  any  person 
unbaptized,  after  the  institution  of  Christian  Baptism  by 
our  Lord,  coming  to  the  Lord's  Table ;  and,  therefore,  if 
we  should  continue  to  attend  the  Lord's  Table  without 
being  baptized,  knowing  that  Pedobaptism  is  not  the  Bap- 
tism appointed  by  Christ,  we  should  he  doing  contrary  to 
all  the  precedents  of  the  New  TestamentJ'  This  language 
seemed  so  strong,  and  its  whole  bearing  so  entirely  against 
open  Communion,  that  it  at  fii-st  led  many  Baptists  in  this 
country  to  the  premature  conclusion  that  Mr.  Noel's  views 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  were  more  akin  to  those  of  the  Bap- 
tists in  this  country  than  in  England.  Indeed  we  believe 
that  this  is  the  case,  so  far  as  his  personal  duty  is  con- 


248  COMMUNION. 

cerned.  It  is  true,  lie  does  not  liere  use  the  words  ^^  insti- 
tuted connection/^  but  why  did  he  put  the  two  ordinances 
together  in  so  remarkable  a  manner,  unless  he  intuitively 
felt  that  there  was  an  appointed  and  special  connection  be- 
tween them  ? 

14.  The  very  strong  view  which  the  Author  takes,  of  the 
Scriptural  connexion  between  Baptism  and  Regeneration, 
render  his  practical  denial  by  free  Communion,  of  the 
instituted  connexion  between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  he  verbally  admits,  still  more  surprising. 
In  commenting  on  Titus  3 :  5,  he  explains  ^^  the  washing 
of  regeneration,''  by  which,  with  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  we  are  saved — to  mean  Baptism.  ^'  The 
Spirit,''  he  says,  (p.  113,)  "imparts  new  life.  Baptism  ma- 
nifests it;  and  both  complete  the  new  birth.  As  a  child 
first  lives,  and  then  comes  into  the  world,  and  thus  is  born ; 
his  entrance  into  the  world  not  giving  life,  but  manifest- 
ing it ;  so  the  child  of  Grod  receives  life,  and  then  is  bap- 
tized, and  thus  is  new-born,  his  baptism  not  giving  spiri- 
tual life,  but  manifesting  it ;  and  therefore  Baptism  is  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  or  the  washing,  which  is  the 
manifestation  and  completion  of  regeneration.  By  these 
two  things,  the  washing  and  the  renewing,  the  spiritual 
renovation,  and  the  Baptism  which  manifests  it,  God  saves 
His  people.  All  the  passages  respecting  Baptism  are  ex- 
actly in  harmony  in  this  matter."  Now  if  Baptism  is 
"the  manifestation  and  completion  of  regeneration,"  then 
in  Free  Communion,  we  invite  to  the  Lord's  Table  those, 
not  manifestly  or  completely  regenerated !  And  with  a 
full  consciousness,  that  he  could  not  himself  approach  the 
Lord's  Table  unbaptized,  without  "  violating  all  the  pre- 
cedents of  the  New  Testament,"  even  believing  Baptism 
necessary  to   "  the  manifestation  and  completion  of  rege- 


EXCESSIVE    GENEROSITY.  249 

neration/^  and  freely  admitting,  that  ^Uhere  is  an  insti- 
tuted connexion"  between  it  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  Mr. 
Noel  yet  contends,  that  we  ought  to  admit  to  the  latter, 
and  this  even  in  Baptist  Churches,  those  who  reject  the 
former.  Is  it  not  at  least  plain,  that  such  a  course  must 
destroy  them  as  Baptist  Churches,  especially,  as  neither 
he,  nor  Robert  Hall,  ever  pretend  to  draw  any  distinction 
between  admitting  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  to  full  Church 
Membership.  That  Mr.  Noel  is  sincere,  none  can  doubt ; 
but  when  he  proposes  to  form  the  terms  of  fellowship  for 
Baptist  Churches,  upon  supposed  possible  exceptions,  in 
direct  opposition  to  ''all  the  precedents  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment;" he  exhibits  a  spirit  of  extreme  concession — an 
excessive  generosity  to  those  who  differ  from  him,  utterly 
subversive  of  instituted  ordinances. 


CHAPTER  III. 


CONSIDERED. 

1.  These  might  be  passed  over.     2.  State  of  the  case. 

I.  Prohibitory  asjject  of  the  system. —  1.  Each  visible  church  independ- 
ent. 2.  No  conscientious  Christian  is  forbidden  to  commune  at  the 
Lord's  Table  with  those  who  hold  similar  views. 

II.  Implied  usurjmtion  over  conscience. — 1.  Peculiar  impropriety  of  this 
objection  from  Mr.  Noel  after  his  concessions.  2.  Supposes  two  serious 
misconceptions.    3.  Singular  reasoning.     4.  Results  to  Avhich  it  tends. 

III.  Apparent  inconsistency. — 1.   It  is  not  real.     2.   Evidence  of  this. 

3.  The  first  Christians  worshipped  with  the  Jews  in  the  Synagogiies. 

4.  Unique  relation  of  Baptism  and  the  Supper,  intuitively  felt.  5.  The 
alternative  forced  upon  us.  6.  Acknowledgment  of  Drs.  Ypeij  and 
Dermont  of  Holland.     7.  Remark  of  Andrew  Fuller.     8.  Illustrations. 

IV.  Impolicy  of  exclusiveness :  especially  where  a  doctrine  is  unpopular, 
though  true. — 1 .  The  Author's  theories.  2.  They  strike  at  the  root  of 
investigation,  by  denying  its  necessity.  3.  Action  is  here  more  necessary 
even  than  investigation.  4.  Action  pi-oduces  action.  5.  Such  exem- 
plary action  does  not  diminish  spirituality.  Comparison  of  United 
States  and  England  shows  this.  6.  Mr.  Noel's  grand  concession.  7.  It 
amounts  to  the  surrender  of  his  Avhole  argument. 

1.  We  have  now  only  to  review  that  portion  of  Mr.  Noel's 
remarks,  in  which  the  arguments  of  Strict  Communionists 
are  discussed.  But  as  we  have  not  professed  to  urge  all 
that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  strict  communion ;  hut  merely 
to  carry  out  a  single  consistent  line  of  argument  to  its  legit- 
imate results,  we  might  here  with  propriety  conclude ;  not 
being  necessarily  required  to  notice  any  remarks  which  do 
not  bear  upon  the  particular  train  of  thought  to  which  we 
have  confined  ourselves. 


OBJECTIONS    ESTABLISH    NOTHING.  251 

2.  The  state  of  the  case  so  far  is  in  brief  this.  Mr.  Noel 
admits  that  the  system  of  inviting  the  baptized  alone  to 
our  Church  membership  and  its  symbols,  is  by  virtue  of 
an  instituted  connexion,  the  only  plan  '^  conformable"  with 
"  the  instances  of  the  New  Testament ;''  but  he  puts  in  a 
plea  of  special  exceptions  to  the  letter,  in  favor  of  what  he 
considers  the  spirit  of  Scripture.  This  he  attempts  to  sup- 
port by  an  appeal,  first  to  the  nature  of  things,  and  then 
to  the  Word  of  Grod.  We  have  considered  his  reasoning 
in  favor  of  both  these  appeals.  It  has,  we  submit,  utterly 
failed  to  establish  what  he  proposed.  All  his  objections, 
therefore,  to  arguments  sometimes  urged  on  the  other 
side,  whatever  their  value,  could  not  make  good  his  side  of 
the  question.  Objections  can  only  demolish ;  they  estab- 
lish nothing. 

We  touch,  however,  upon  a  few  points,  though  at  the 
hazard  of  prolixity. 

I.  On  p.  291,  commenting  upon  some  statements  of 
Mr.  Fuller  and  the  Primitive  Church  Magazine,. Mr.  Noel 
objects  to  our  plan  of  Communion,  that  thus  "the  saints 
of  Jesus  are  put  out  of  Communion  with  any  of  His 
Churches."  So  also  (on  p.  294)  he  urges  that  it  says  in 
effect,  "  Because  you  cannot  confess  Christ  in  one  way,  we 
will  hinder  you  from  confessing  him  in  another." 

1.  There  certainly  is  nothing  in  our  plan  of  Communion 
that  involves  any  such  consequences.  Mr.  Noel,  in  com- 
mon with  ourselves,  considers  each  Church  a  perfectly  in- 
dependent body.  Not  to  receive  a  person  into  a  Baptist 
Church  does  not  prevent  his  reception  into  any  other, 
regulated  by  different  principles.  But  it  may  be  urged 
that  if  all  Christian  Churches  were  founded  upon  our  plan, 
large  numbers  of  the  professing  saints  of  Jesus  would  be 
put  out  of  Communion  with  any  of  them.     By  no  means. 


252  COMMUNION. 

In  that  case,  no  professing  Cliristian  would,  npon  this 
account,  be  put  out  of  communion  with  any  Christian 
Church.  For  then,  all  such  persons  would  be  baptized. 
Unquestionably  it  would  produce  confusion  to  adopt  half 
our  plan,  but  not  the  whole ;  Strict  Communion,  but  not 
Baptism.  For  such  confusion,  those  must  be  answerable 
who  occasion  it.  But  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  those 
Christian  Churches  that  dispense  with  what  we  consider 
Baptism,  everywhere  else  but  at  the  Communion  Table, 
will  yet  require  it  there.  Such  a  course  would  assuredly 
be  inconsistent  and  absurd.  We  do  not  hinder  those  who 
disbelieve  in  our  Baptism,  from  joining  or  forming  Churches 
not  requiring  it.  Our  principles,  then,  ever  so  fully  car- 
ried out,  if  fairly  acted  upon,  could  never  lead  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  any  of  the  professing  saints  of  Jesus  from 
Church  Communion,  ^ye  do  not,  therefore,  "  hinder  them'' 
from  confessing  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  they 
do  not  in  Baptism. 

2.  How  inappropriate,  then,  to  use  the  mildest  term,  is 
the  language  in  which  Mr.  Noel  characterizes  our  views  of 
Communion,  (p.  297,)  where  he  says  that  by  us,  '^eminent 
Christians  are  treated  as  heretics,  disobedient  to  the  law 
of  Christ,  and  aliens  from  his  Church."  Disobedient  to 
the  law  of  Baptism,  Pedobaptists  certainly  are,  if  our  views 
are  correct;  many  of  them.ignorantly  no  doubt,  but  many 
more  from  purposely  avoiding  the  study  of  the  subject, 
like  Mr.  Noel.  (Pref.  p.  1.)  But  our  views  of  the  indepen- 
dence of  Churches  would  alone  be  sufficient  to  prevent  us 
from  treating  such  persons  as  "  heretics ;"  least  of  all 
from  regarding  them  as  "  aliens"  from  the  Church  of 
Christ.  There  is  but  one  body  in  all  earth  and  heaven, 
entitled  to  the  appellation  of  The  Church  or  "His  Church," 
2.  e.  The  ITniversal  Church,  which  is  invisible.     There  is. 


EQUAL   LIBERTY.  253 

a  wide  difference  between  the  proper  terms  of  Visible  and 
Invisible  Church  membership.  That  is  implied  in  the 
distinction  of  the  names.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  symbol 
of  Visible  Church  membership.  Not  partaking  of  it  to- 
gether, therefore,  implies  no  want  of  fellowship  in  the  In- 
visible Church. 

II.  Mr.  Noel,  (p.  291-2,)  quotes  the  following  as  a  state- 
ment of  our  sentiments  :  ^'  We  are  willing  to  receive  all 
who  appear  to  have  been  received  of  God  to  the  ordinances 
of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  we  cannot  divide 
the  one  from  the  other."  This  he  declares  to  be  no  re- 
ception of  them,  but  as  saying  in  effect :  "  Unless  you  will 
forego  what  you  believe  to  be  a  duty, — the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, and  accept  us  as  authoritative  expositors  of  Christian 
doctrine,  we  must  expel  you  from  our  Society,  when  we 
commemorate  the  dying  love  of  our  Lord." 

1.  These  remarks  refer  to  a  course  of  reasoning,  not  strict- 
ly within  our  line  of  argument.  But  the  objection  seems  to 
come  with  peculiar  impropriety  from  one,  who,  in  the  next 
sentence,  '^  freely  admits"  that  there  is  "  an  instituted  con- 
nection'^ between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  for  how 
then  can  we  divide  them  ?  But  he  says  he  does  not  wish 
to  divide  them  himself,  but  only  to  permit  Pedobaptists  to 
do  so  if  they  will.  This  is  just  what  we  do;  allowing  all 
other  Churches  the  same  liberty  that  we  use,  but  wishing 
ourselves  to  ^^keep  the  ordinances  as  they  were  delivered 
unto  us.'^  Hence  we  cannot  constitute  our  own  Churches 
upon  the  basis  of  separating  those  two  ordinances,  which 
appear  in  all  Scripture  precedents  to  be  connected.  Each 
Church  is  the  authorized  expositor  of  Christian  doctrine 
for  itself,— it  has  to  decide  what  is  Christian  Baptism ; 
whether  there  is,  according  to  Scripture,  an  instituted  con- 
nection between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper ;  or  in  Mr. 
22 


254  COMMUNION. 

Noel's  own  words,  it  must  be  the  ultimate  judge  of  the 
qualifications  of  those  who  seek  communion  with  it.  We 
concede  to  others  the  same  right  to  judge  for  themselves; 
but  it  seems  to  us  utterly  incongruous  for  Mr.  Noel,  after 
freely  admitting  that  there  is  an  instituted  connection  be- 
tween Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  complain  because 
we  simply  act  upon  the  principle  of  not  dividing  them  in 
the  constitution  of  our  Churches. 

2.  So  obvious  is  this  fallacy,  that  we  think  it  could  not 
have  imposed  upon  Mr.  Noel,  long  enough  to  have  written 
it  down,  had  it  not  been  coupled  in  his  mind,  as  it  is  in 
the  passage  we  have  quoted,  with  one  or  two  misconcep- 
tions of  so  serious  a  character,  that  we  cannot  even,  at  the 
risk  of  repetition,  pass  them  without  notice. 

(a.)  He  speaks  as  though  we  first  received  pious  Pedo- 
baptists  into  our  Churches ;  and  then,  '^  when  we  commemo- 
rate the  dying  love  of  our  Lord,'^  "  expelled  them  from 
our  Society."  To  expel  is  to  drive  out.  It  is  impossible 
to  drive  out  of  a  Church  those  who  never  were  in  it.  But 
we  have  already  discussed  this  point. 

(5.)  But  the  cause  for  which  we  are  represented  as  expel- 
ling those  who  do  not  and  will  not  join  us,  is  as  erroneous  as 
the  charge  itself.  We  are  represented  as  saying,  ^^  Unless 
you  will  forego  what  you  believe  to  be  a  duty, — the  bap- 
tism of  infants,  and  accept  us  as  authoritative  expositors 
of  Christian  doctrine,  we  must  expel  you."  But  it  is  not 
for  anything  which  Pedobaptists  feel  called  upon  to  doj 
not  even  for  baptizing  infants,  that  we  refrain  from  invi- 
ting them  to  visible  Church  membership,  or  its  symbqls. 
It  is,  because  they  do  not  submit  to  Christian  Baptism. 

3.  And  yet  the  same  sentiment  is  repeated  (p.  300)  even 
more  strongly.  ^'  You  do  this,"  says  our  author,  speaking 
of  our  not  inviting  Pedobaptists   to  commune,   "  because 


SINGULAR    REASONING.  255 

thej^  do  just  what  you  do  yourselves,  since  you  will  baptize 
believers  alone,  because  you  think  that  Christ  requires  it, 
and  they  will  baptize  infants,  because  they  think  that  He 
requires  it.  You  do  this,  therefore,  on  a  principle  that 
would  justify  their  exclusion  of  you,  which  proscribes  all 
communion  among  believers,"  &c.  This  is  truly  singular 
reasoning  for  a  man  like  Mr.  Noel.  He  first  assumes  that 
it  is  for  baptizing  infants,  that  we  do  not  invite  them  to 
our  Communion  Table ;  and  then,  by  a  most  unheard  of 
logic,  would  prove  that  in  this,  they  only  do  just  what  we 
do  ourselves,  because  they  are  sincere,  and  so  are  we. 
4.  According  to  this,  anything  which  a  person  erroneously 
thinks  to  be  the  will  of  Christ,  is  just  as  acceptable  as  if  it 
actually  were  his  will.  The  Roman  Catholic  thinks  that 
the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  prayers  and  masses 
for  the  dead  are  the  will  of  Christ ;  yet  does  the  sincere 
but  idolatrous  worshipper  of  the  Virgin,  when  he  prostrates 
himself  before  her  image,  "  only  do  just  what  we  do,'^  when 
we  baptize  or  are  baptized  as  believers,  because  we  both 
think  that  Christ  requires  our  respective  acts  of  worship. 
What  kind  of  reasoning  is  this,  by  which  idolatry  and 
Christian  Baptism  are  placed  upon  a  moral  level ;  each 
represented  as  equally  agreeable  to  Christ,  because  both 
are  sincere.  Carry  this  a  little  further.  The  Hindoo,  as 
he  kys  his  head  beneath  the  rolling  car  of  Juggernaut, 
and  the  mother,  as  she  smothers  her  child  in  the  mud  of  the 
Ganges,  are  also  sincere,  and  think  themselves  performing 
the  will  of  heaven.  Shall  we  then  say  that  they  only  do 
^^just  as  we  do  ourselves,"  because  they  think  they  are 
performing  the  will  of  heaven  in  murder  and  suicide,  and 
we  can  do  no  more  in  Christian  Baptism?  He  erroneously 
complains  that  our  plan  "  proscribes  all  communion  among 
believers.""     His  would  assuredly  embrace  idolaters,  mur- 


256  COMMUNION. 

derers  and  suicides  as  "doing  just  wbat  we  do  ourselves/' 
acting  sincerely.  According  to  this  reasoning,  Paul,  when 
lie  persecuted  the  saints  of  God,  and  imbrued  his  hands  in 
their  blood,  "  only  did  just  what  we  do,^'  because  he 
"  verily  thought"  that  God  required  it :  and  this  is,  why 
we  baptize. 

III.  On  pp.  292-3,  after  admitting  that  originally  "no 
person  who  refused  to  be  baptized  was  ever  admitted  in 
any  Christian  Church  to  the  Lord's  Supper,"  he  wishes  to 
show  that  this  can  be  no  guide  for  us  now,  because  the 
same  was  then  as  true  of  preaching  or  leading  in  public 
prayer,  as  of  the  Eucharist. — We  shall  not  here  particularly 
inquire  how  early  and  to  what  extent  the  Christians  separa- 
ted themselves  from  those  Jewish  synagogues  that  did  not 
exclude  them;  though  until  that  period  they  did  sit  under 
the  preaching  and  prayers  of  unbaptized  persons. 

4.  It  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  his  parallel  doe^  not 
hold  good,  because  these  two  special  ordinances  of  Chris- 
tianity sustain  a  unique  relation  to  each  other.  It  is  but 
consistent,  therefore,  that  there  should  be  prior  ceremonial 
agreement,  where  there  is  ceremonial  communion,  as  there 
must  be  prior  spiritual  agreement  where  there  is  spiritual 
communion.  We  need  not  here  recur  in  proof  of  this,  to 
our  author's  admission  not  only  of  a  natural,  but  of  an 
"  instituted  connexion"  between  these  two  ordinances,  nor 
to  the  fact  that  he  seems  in  his  own  case  to  feel  the  con- 
nection to  be  very  strong.  On  p.  280  he  says,  that  "  a 
person  who  should  come  to  the  Lord's  Table  unbaptized, 
would  place  himself  in  a  situation  unlike  that  of  all  the 
Christians  during  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles."  Now, 
why  does  he  intuitively  speak  of  the  Lord's  Supper  so  par- 
ticularly in  connexion  with  Baptism  ?  That  occurs  but 
occasionally, — worship  to  G  d,  daily.     Why  did  he  not 


DANGER    OF    LAX    NOTIONS.  257 

say  that  for  a  person  to  come  daily  to  God  in  prayer,  or 
to  preach  in  his  name,  and  yet  remain  unbaptized,  would 
be  to  place  himself  in  a  situation  unlike  that  of  all  the 
primitive  Christians  during  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles  ? 
Plainly,  because  he  instinctively  felt  that  there  is  a  natural 
connection  in  the  one  case,  that  there  is  not  in  the  other. 

5.  But  from  these  germs  in  p.  292,  a  plan  of  communion  is 
developed,  (p.  293,)  upon  which  it  would  be  impossible  to 
refuse  Roman  Catholics  as  such,  the  right  to  flock  in  any 
numbers  to  our  Churches,  and  alter  them  by  their  votes 
to  whatever  shape  they  please.  ^^  What  upright  and  earnest 
believer  was  ever  in  those  days  excluded  ?"  asks  our  author. 
Must  we  then  be  driven  to  the  extremity  of  either  deny- 
ing that  there  are  any  upright  and  earnest  believers  among 
the  Roman  Catholics  and  the  Puseyite  Episcopalians,  or 
else  be  forced  to  receive  all  such  into  full  membership, 
and  to  the  Communion  Table,  its  chief  symbol, — permit 
them  to  come  in  as  equally  entitled  to  all  the  privileges, 
and  even  direction  and  of&ces  of  our  Churches ;  confer  on 
them  the  right  to  preach  their  doctrines,  to  worship  after 
their  forms,  to  introduce  their  system  of  Church  govern- 
ment, to  baptize  those  whom  they  see  fit,  yea,  to  celebrate 
masses  for  the  dead,  and  the  worship  of  the  Virgin,  pro- 
vided they  could  once  secure  a  majority  of  a  single  Church 
in  their  favor  ?  Whole  denominations  often  alter  radically 
in  a  few  years,  even  where  the  forms  of  their  government 
and  worship  are  far  more  studiously  conservative  than  our 
own.  Look  at  the  revolutions  which  the  Episcopal  Church 
has  undergone,  owing  to  its  lax  notions  of  Communion. 
Fifty  years  ago  it  was  mostly  Arminian ;  twenty  years  ago 
it  had  become  largely  evangelical ;  now  it  is  full  of  the 
worst  errors  of  Rome.  We  are  quite  willing  that  the  go- 
vernment of  our"  Churches  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the 
22* 


258  COMMUNION. 

Communicants  so  long  as  the  New  Testament  requisitions 
are  complied  with ;  which  make  necessary  a  certain  union 
of  objective  Christianity,  in  connexion  with  its  subjective 
basis.  Free  Communion  presupposes  a  religion  entirely 
subjective;  which  is  as  certainly,  though  not  perhaps  as 
mischievously  a  departure  from  the  original  principles  of 
the  Constitution  of  Visible  Church  Membership,  as  the 
Koman  Catholic  system,  which  makes  objective  Christianity 
alone  requisite  without  any  mixture  of  the  subjective  ele- 
ment. 

6.  If  it  is  desirable  to  preserve  to  future  ages  one  denomi- 
nation upholding  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  exhibited  in  the  New  Testament,  it  must  be  by 
keeping  these  two  elements  in  their  proper  mutual  rela- 
tion. A  denomination  doing  this,  will  preserve  its  cha- 
racteristics, but  no  other.  A  distinguished  German  Pro- 
fessor of  Theology  has  borne  an  appropriate  testimony  to 
the  manner  in  which  Baptists  have  fulfilled  their  part  thus 
far.  To  quote  this  will  probably  be  the  most  effectual 
warning  against  an  innovation  so  radical  in  its  nature,  as 
that  advocated  by  Robert  Hall  and  Mr.  Noel ;  one  which, 
by  dispensing  with  objective  piety  from  the  prerequisites 
of  Communion,  must  essentially  alter  that  Church  Consti- 
tution which  is  the  most  perfect  embodiment  of  New  Tes- 
tament Christianity.  The  extract  is  taken  from  a  volume, 
entitled  '^An  Account  of  the  Origin  of  the  Dutch  Baptists,'^ 
published  in  1819,  by  Dr.  Ypeij,  Professor  of  Theology,  at 
Groningen,  and  Bev.  J.  J.  Dermont,  Chaplain  to  the  King 
of  the  Netherlands.  ''  The  Baptists  may  be  considered  as 
the  only  Christian  community  which  has  stood  since  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  a  Christian  society  has 
preserved  pure  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  through  all 
ages.  The  perfectly  correct  external  and  internal  economy 


ILLUSTRATIONS.  259 

of  the  Baptist  denomination  tends  to  confirm  tlie  truth 
disputed  by  the  Romish  Church,  that  the  Reformation  was 
in  the  highest  degree  necessary ;  and  at  the  same  time 
goes  to  refute  the  erroneous  notion  of  the  Catholics,  that 
their  communion  is  the  most  ancient/^ 

7.  The  language  of  Andrew  Fuller,  which  Mr.  Noel 
quotes,  (p.  294,)  as  exceptionable,  seems  to  us  to  contain  an 
important  truth,  couched  in  the  most  exact  and  appropriate 
language.  ^^  The  Scriptures  lay  great  stress  upon  con- 
fessing Christ's  name  before  men,  (Matt.  10  :  32,)  and 
baptism  is  one  of  the  most  distinguished  ways  of  doing 
this.  When  a  man  becomes  a  believer  in  Christ,  he  con- 
fesses it  usually  in  words  to  other  believers,  but  the  ap- 
pointed way  of  confessing  it  openly  to  the  world,  is  by 
being  baptized  in  his  name.  If,  therefore,  we  profess 
Christianity  only  in  words,  the  thing  professed  may  be 
genuine,  but  the  profession  is  certainly  defective." 

8.  Mr.  Noel's  illustrations  are  not  more  fortunate  than 
his  arguments  on  the  point.  Speaking  of  Baptist  and 
Pedobaptist  members  in  the  same  Church,  he  says,  (p.  294,) 
^^  Both  wear  the  King's  uniform,  but  the  one  assumed  it 
at  the  earlier  rite ;  the  other  more  irregularly  at  the  latter 
rite.  If  the  one  in  Baptism  professed  to  die  with  Christ, 
the  other  in  the  Supper  showed  forth  the  Lord's  death." 

Were  we  to  form  a  figure  to  express  our  views,  it  would 
be  somewhat  different  from  this  of  our  author's.  Though 
we  would  not,  for  fear  of  misapprehension,  compare  un- 
baptized  communicants  to  guests  at  the  marriage  feast 
without  a  wedding  garment,  yet  we  would  liken  them  to 
soldiers,  brave  men,  and  zealous  in  the  Christian  warfare, 
but  still  out  of  uniform,  and  refusing  to  put  it  on.  "  So 
many  of  you,"  says  Paul,  ^^  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  x^ut  on  Christ."     Good  soldiers  and  true  they 


260  COMMUNION. 

are,  but,  in  the  matter  of  apparel,  like  Falstaff 's  regiment. 
To  mix  up  such  in  the  very  same  company  with  those  re- 
gularly equipped  (baptized  and  unbaptized  in  the  same 
Churches)  and  then  boast  of  the  motley  and  speckled  ap- 
pearance of  the  regiment ;  what  is  it  but  the  surest  method 
conceivable  of  destroying  all  respect  for  the  uniform.  It 
would  be  impossible  that  any  regard  for  soldierly  equip- 
ment should  survive  such  a  shock.  It  would  then  appear 
that  Free  Communion  principles  must  give  the  death 
blow  to  all  respect  for  Baptism,  of  every  form  and  kind;  a 
result  quite  as  erroneous  as  Infant  Baptism  itself. 

ly.  1.  After  what  has  been  said,  it  seems  almost  unneces- 
sary to  touch  upon  Mr.  Noel's  remarks  in  regard  to  the 
'policy  of  Mixed  Communion.  He  argues  (p.  297)  thus. 
''  When  any  doctrine  is  at  once  popular  and  false,  an  ex- 
clusive policy  upholds  it.  .  .  .  But  exclusiveness  is  ex- 
tremely impolitic,  when  a  doctrine  is  unpopular  and  true. 
Nothing  is  more  favorable  to  the  progress  of  such  a  doc- 
trine than  investigation.  .  .  .  Which  course,  then,  tends 
most  to  encourage  investigation,  close  Communion,  or 
open?  .  .  .  The  former  must  irritate  and  repel;  the  lat- 
ter cannot  but  attract  regard.''  We  have  not  space  here 
to  examine  all  the  theories  by  which  the  Author  attempts 
to  prove  his  point.     It  must  suffice  to  remark, 

2.  That  Free  Communion  cuts  at  the  root  of  investi- 
gation hy  denying  all  necessity  for  it.  By  admitting  both 
parties  to  be  sufficiently  correct,  it  practically  says  that 
there  is  nothing  requiring  investigation.  It  discourages 
all  discussion.  It  has  often  tied  the  hands  of  pastors,  for- 
bidden them  to  discuss  the  subject  from  their  pulpits,  or 
in  private ;  prevented  them  from  administering  the  ordi- 
nance of  Baptism  in  the  Church  on  the  Lord's  Day;  and 
made  it  now  quite  customary,  in  England,  to  prefer  a 


THE    PRESENT    AGE    NEEDS   ACTION.  261 

week-day  evenings  when  the  Church  is  not  of&cially  con- 
vened. 

3.  But  waiving  that,  we  ask  if  investigation  is  the  only 
thing  required,  in  the  present  age,  on  the  subject  of  Bap- 
tism ?  It  is  not  even  the  chief  thing.  It  is  action  that 
is  needed.  Our  views  lie  on  the  very  surface  of  the  New 
Testament.  It  does  indeed  require  a  great  deal  of  inves- 
tigation for  a  Christian  to  find  a  plausible  excuse  for  not 
being  baptized.  But  while  we  never  fear  it,  it  cannot 
make  our  views  more  certain  than  they  are.  Probably 
half  the  members  of  Pedobaptist  Churches  at  this  moment, 
have  searched  the  Scriptures  far  enough  to  drop  Infant 
Baptism,  as  useless  and  unscriptural.  Were  they  only  to 
act  consistently  with  what  they  already  know,  it  would 
soon  produce  investigation  enough  to  enlighten  the  other 
half,  and  baptism  would  be  restored  to  its  original  position 
in  all  evangelical  Churches. 

4.  Now  it  is  action  that  produces  action.  To  tell  a  person 
that  he  is  in  error,  but  that  it  is  of  no  importance,  will 
rarely  incite  investigation,  but  never  rouse  the  sluggish 
conscience  to  action,  which  is  what  is  here  chiefly  requi- 
site.    Pure  self-denying  example  is  all  important. 

5.  Mr.  Noel  is  afraid  of  our  views  of  Communion  ^'  in- 
juring the  spiritof  the  Churches  which  practice  it.^^  (p.  298.) 
"  At  least,  they  must  be  tempted  to  overvalue  the  form 
of  religion,  and  to  undervalue  the  reality;  to  pay  tithe 
of  mint,  and  anise,  and  cummin,  and  to  omit  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy  and  faith,^' — "to 
overvalue  themselves  on  account  of  baptism,  and  by  im- 
pairing the  spirituality  of  the  Church,  Mnder  the  conver- 
sion of  sinners."  This  would  be  a  serious  charge,  if  true. 
But  look  at  facts.  In  this  country,  for  instance,  where 
Baptist  Churches  are  founded  upon  our  principles;  are 


262  COMMUNION. 

revivals  less  frequent,  are  professed  conversions  more  rare 
than  in  England  among  the  Open  Communion  Churches  ? 
Compare  the  statistics  of  our  denomination  in  this  country 
and  in  England.  In  every  respect  that  marks  a  growing, 
healthy  body  of  Christians,  will  it  be  found  that  the  views 
of  Communion  current  in  this  country  have  exerted  a 
baneful  influence  ?  Compare  the  Baptists  of  this  country 
with  any  other  evangelical  body  of  Christians,  and  statis- 
tics will  show  as  healthful  and  extensive  a  progress  over 
all  parts  of  the  country  as  in  any  other  denomination. 

6.  Towards  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter,  Mr.  Noel,  in 
reply  to  an  argument  of  Andrew  Fuller's,  makes  conces- 
sions which  virtually  overthrow  the  whole  principle  for 
which  he  has  been  contending.  Speaking  of  the  admis- 
sion of  Pedobaptists  to  Communion,  (p.  299,)  he  says, 
'^Nor  could  their  presence  injure  these  churches;  and 
with  respect  to  members,  each  Church  has  the  means  of 
preventing  the  alleged  evil  in  its  own  hands;  for  although 
it  may  not  repel  from  its  communion  Pedobaptists,  as 
such,  it  has  yet  the  right  to  ask  from  all  who  are  candi- 
dates for  communion,  credible  proofs  that  they  are  true 
disciples.  .  .  .  Each  Church  may,  if  it  will,  require  from 
candidates  the  profession  of  this  faith,  and  testimonials  to 
their  conduct.  The  profession  thus  required  may  be  ex- 
actly that  icliicli  icoulcl  he  made  in  baptism  /  and  if  the 
Church  dread  the  appearance  of  sanctioning  disobedience 
to  a  command  of  Christ,  each  Pedobaptist  candidate  may 
be  required  distinctly/  to  profess  that  he  refuses  to  be  bap- 
tized only  in  obedience  to  what  he  believes,  after  exami- 
nation, to  be  the  will  of  Christ."  Here,  in  the  shape  of 
.  "  credible  proofs,"  "  testimonials,"  and  "  professions," 
^^  after  examination,"  a  great  deal  more  is  admitted,  and 
proposed  to  be  required  of  candidates  for  Communion,  than 


MR.  NOEL'S    CONCESSION.  263 

is  essential  to  salvation ;  a  great  deal  more  tlian  he  him- 
self, pious,  excellent,  and  able  minister  of  Jesus  Christ, 
as  he  has  been  for  more  than  twenty  years,  could  have 
answered  two  years  ago.     (See  his  Preface,  p.  1.) 

7.  And  yet,  after  all  this,  he  tells  us,  (p.  301,)  that  the 
whole  point  at  issue  between  the  Free  Communion  and 
other  Baptists,  is  that  the  former  contend  that  we  have  a 
right  "  to  demand  no  other  terms  of  Communion  than 
such  as  are  terms  of  salvation/^  If  that,  indeed,  be  a 
fair  statement  of  the  case,  then  we  submit  that  he  has 
here  conceded  the  very  point  at  issue. 


CONCLUSION   OF   PART   IV. 

We  had  intended  only  to  make  a  few  observations,  in 
regard  to  the  latter  part  of  Mr.  Noel's  remarks ;  but  have 
been  led  on  from  one  page  to  another,  until  there  is  hardly 
a  sentence,  and  not  an  argument  which  we  have  left  uncon- 
sidered. In  view  of  the  whole,  we  think  it  will  be  evident 
to  every  reader,  that  Mr.  Noel  has  certainly  failed  to  pro- 
duce any  just  reason  for  departing  in  the  constitution  of 
our  Churches  from  the  Primitive  order.  Least  of  all,  has 
he  proved  the  point  he  undertook  to  demonstrate,  and 
which  is  the  only  alternative  from  our  plan,  that  no  other 
terms  of  Church  Fellowship  and  Communion  are  admis- 
sible than  such  as  are  terms  of  salvation. 

The  object  of  this  review  of  Mr.  Noel's  remarks  has 
been  simply  defensive ;  not  to  exhibit  the  positive  argu- 
ments in  fiivour  of  our  system  of  Church  Fellowship,  but 
simply  to  defend  our  course  against  the  strictures  of  one 
whose  excellence  of  character  makes  it  painful  to  differ 
from  him,  even   in  matters  that,  compared  with  the  great 


264  COMMUNION. 

points  on  whicli  lie  is  so  admirable,  are  "but  of  trifling  im- 
portance. 

Indeed,  it  is  but  justice  to  add,  tbat  tlirougliout  the 
wbole  course,  not  only  of  these  pages,  but  of  his  public 
life,  the  Author  has  exhibited  the  most  earnest  love  of 
truth,  and  the  most  elevated  and  disinterested  readiness 
to  sacrifice  everything  for  its  promotion.  The  Christian 
reverence  for  the  will  of  God,  and  love  to  all  who  love 
Christ,  exhibited  in  the  pages  of  his  entire  work,  will  do 
more,  by  the  holy  example  it  sets,  to  diffuse  the  spirit  of 
charity  into  all  parts  of  the  controversy  of  Baptism,  than 
any  arguments  for  particular  modes  of  exhibiting  it.  His 
address,  delivered  when  about  to  be  "  buried  with  Christ 
by  baptism,"  must  win  for  his  course,  the  respect  and 
love  of  all  who  love  Christ.  Let  us  close  these  observa- 
tions, by  expressing  the  hope  that  a  new  day  has  dawned 
upon  Christendom,  and  that  not  only  in  their  more  social 
intercourse,  but  even  in  their  controversies,  our  religious 
leaders  will  exhibit  more  of  the  meekness  and  gentleness 
of  Christ,  by  speaking  the  truth  in  love ;  and  that  the  day 
will  soon  arrive  when  "  Ephraim  shall  not  envy  Judah, 
and  Judah  shall  not  vex  Ephraim." 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

1.  The  bearing  of  these  views  on  the  Churches.  2.  The  po-n-er  of  the 
Churches,  to  spread  right  views  of  the  ordinances.  4.  The  ordinances 
specially  committed  to  the  Chm-ches.  4.  The  relative  position  of  the 
Church  and  the  Bible  to  the  world.  5.  Duty  of  the  Churches  in 
view  of  the  corruption  of  the  ordinances.  6.  Objection — part  to  be 
sacrificed  to  the  good  of  the  whole.  7.  The  duty  of  Pedobaptist 
Churches — their  Baptism  a  nullity.  8.  Position  of  the  Baptists 
towards  them — we  ask  them  to  defer  Baptism  to  believing.  9.  The 
duty  of  such  ChurcheS:  10.  The  duty  of  such  ministers.  11.  Why 
we  offer  these  remarks,  12.  All  Christians  love  Christ  better  than 
any  symbols.  13.  Fate  of  Sects.  14.  Prevailing  ideas  of  this  age — 
Voluntariness.  15.  Stlf-governmeni.  16.  Baptist  sentiments  embody 
these.  17.  Changes  progressive.  18.  The  Home  of  the  Christian. 
19.  It  embodies  the  results  of  all  the  changes  of  Time. 

1.  Having  now  considered  the  great  principles  upon 
wliicli  our  views  of  Communion  are  based,  we  venture  to 
offer  one  or  two  concluding  reflections,  in  relation  to  the 
bearing  of  these  principles  upon  the  Churches  of  Christ,  as 
such,  their  members  and  their  ministers  respectively. 

In  regard  (1.)  to  the  Churches  of  Christ.  If  our  views 
are  correct,  each  one  of  these  bodies  is  an  independent 
organization,  answerable  for  its  whole  course  directly  to 
the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  and  relying  on  his  pro- 
mised protection  and  presence,  for  all  its  light,  and  life, 
and  joy.  From  Him  is  derived  all  that  renders  a  Church 
honorable  to  His  cause,  useful  to  the  world,  edifying  to 
its  members,  happy  in  itself;  just  as  from  the  rays  of  the 
same  sun,  wax  derives  softness  and  clay  hardness,  the 
moon  her  lustre,  the  trees  their  greenness,  and  all  animated 
23 


266  COMMUNION". 

creation,  its  joyousness  and  life.  Should  error,  or  neglect, 
cause  Him  to  remove  the  candlestick  out  of  its  place,  or  to 
withdraw  his  presence,  but  for  a  moment,  the  Church  he- 
comes  as  dark  and  gloomy  as  a  world  without  a  sun. 

2.  To  the  Churches,  as  such,  Christ  has  solemnly  com- 
mitted in  charge,  the  ordinances  of  his  house.  To  neglect 
them  must  be  displeasing  to  Him.  The  power  of  organ- 
ized bodies  of  men,  to  propagate  any  truth,  or  revive  an 
obsolete  opinion  or  practice,  is  naturally  immense.  It 
emboldens  the  timid,  and  decides  the  wavering.  It  incites 
to  action,  because  it  exhibits  truth  in  action.  Apart  from 
these  sources  of  power,  there  is  in  these  bodies,  another 
and  a  greater;  the  presence  and  indwelling  Spirit  of  Christ. 
A  Church  therefore,  is  both  a  human  and  a  divine  institu- 
tion. As  in  man,  one  person  is  formed  by  the  union  of 
soul  and  body,  of  powers  infinitely  greater  than  many  per- 
sons would  possess  with  but  one  of  these  alone ;  so  is 
each  visible  Church  of  Christ  possessed  of  resources,  and 
strength,  and  influence,  illimitable  for  good,  and  far 
transcending  the  sum  of  its  individual  powers.  Its  effects 
on  the  customs  of  society,  for  instance,  apart  from  the 
saving  results  that  attend  its  efforts  and  worship  in  the 
hearts  of  individuals,  are  incalculable.  The  morals  and 
manners  of  a  nation,  and  of  an  age;  its  intelligence; 
even  its  form  of  government,  will  generally  have  their 
archetype  in  the  congregations  of  its  saints.* 

3.  He  who  has  given  to  these  bodies  their  peculiar 
strength — He  who  first  applied  the  power  of  voluntary 
social  organization  to  religious  purposes  in  His  own 
Churches,  and  has,  guarded,  guided,  and  actuated  that 
power,  so  far  as  religion  is   concerned,  ever  since — has 

*  See  Appendix  K. 


■1h 


THE    TRUST    COMMITTED    TO    CHURCHES.        267 

committed  two  sacramental  ordinances  specially  to  their 
care,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  These,  as  mere 
outward  signs,  might  seem  of  little  importance,  but  that 
He  has  connected  with  them,  in  a  remarkable  manner,  a 
whole  system  of  doctrines  and  practice,  of  which  He  has 
made  them  the  symbols  and  exponents;  to  which  indeed, 
He  has  united  them  in  a  unique  manner,  so  that  practi- 
cally, it  should  no  more  be  thought  of  severing  them,  than 
of  disuniting  the  body  and  the  soul,  or  Christ  and  His 
Churches.  He  has  made  it  the  duty  of  these  organiza- 
tions, as  such,  to  convert  the  whole  world  to  the  system  of 
Christianity,  in  all  its  wholeness,  just  as  he  committed  it 
to  them  :  the  parts  balanced  like  the  various  powers  of 
man,  and  adjusted  by  His  own  hand.  They  have  no  right 
to  proclaim  Baptism,  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  without  the 
faith  they  symbolize ;  nor  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  faith 
without  the  symbols.  The  body,  without  the  soul,  is  a 
mere  carcass.  But  the  soul  without  the  body  cannot  be 
realized  in  the  present  state.  Symbol  is  the  appointed 
dwelling  place  for  piety,  as  the  body  clothes  the  living 
spirit,  with  the  firm  bones,  and  the  soft  warm  flesh. 

4.  To  the  Churches,  we  say,  is  this  system,  Christianity, 
committed,  in  all  its  symmetry.  The  Bible  is  indeed  its 
text  book,  and  only  unfailing  standard.  But  each  Church 
of  Christ  is  a  living  hody,  to  which  He  has  given  in  charge, 
both  the  lively  oracles,  and  the  living  ordinances.  It  is 
for  these  Churches  to  draw  from  the  Scriptures,  the  sys- 
tem of  life,  and  to  propagate  it  through  the  whole  earth, 
by  their  divine  powers,  energies,  example,  and  organization. 
^'  Ye  are  my  witnesses,  saith  the  Lord.''  ^^  Ye  are  the  light 
of  the  world."  The  Church  and  the  Bible  stand  in  the 
same  position  to  the  guilty  dying  world^  that  the  physician 


268  COMMUNION. 

and  his  books  stand  to  the  sick  patient.  The  patient  looks 
upon  the  physician  usually  as  the  living  embodiment  of 
his  books.  So  the  sinner  looks  to  the  Churchy  as  the  true 
exponent  of  what  Christianity,  as  a  system  is.  Right  or 
wrong,  each  Church  of  Christ  is  thus  regarded  by  the 
great  masses  of  men.  Hence  they  derive  more  of  their  re- 
ligious ideas,  than  from  any  other  source.  These  two 
Ordinances  then,  should  be  upheld  by  the  Churches,  m 
living  exhibition,  just  in  the  same  position  in  which  they 
are  placed  in  the  New  Testament,  and  they  stand  very  con- 
spicuously in  that  volume.  Much  is  said  of  them  there. 
They  are  held  up  as  the  symbols  and  embodiment  of  many 
vital  truths.  The  one  is  called  "putting  on  Christ,"  the 
other,  "  the  communion  of  the  hody  and  hlood  of  Christ." 
5.  These  ordinances  have  been  greatly  misapprehended 
and  abused.  It  is  therefore  the  peculiar  duty  of  the 
Churches  as  such,  above  all  other  bodies,  to  exert  their 
influence,  the  power  of  their  public  example,  and  their 
social  organization  as  the  appointed  executors  of  the 
Will  of  Christ,  to  restore  them  to  their  original  position, 
to  reform  current  abuses,  and  to  revive  their  primitive 
order.  All  Baptist  Churches  are  agreed  as  to  what  those 
abuses  are,  and  what  that  order  was.  The  only  question, 
so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  is  whether  they  shall  exert 
their  influence  to  produce  a  reformation  in  the  most 
efi"ectual  manner  ?  They  have  immense  powers  conferred. 
Are  they  bound  thus  to  use  them?  We  believe  that  they 
are.  We  have  seen  that  our  plan  of  Communion  practi- 
cally exerts  an  incalculable  influence  for  the  restoration  of 
primitive  Baptism.  Are  we  at  liberty  to  use  less  effectual 
means,  because  they  may  be  less  painful  to  our  feelings  ? 
All  must  perceive  that  this  would  be  a  solemn  breach  of 


OBJECTION— THE    REAL    ISSUES.  269 

trust.  We  should  not  execute  faithfully  the  Will  of  the 
Testator;  and,  by  misplaced  tenderness,  we  should  defraud 
the  legatees. 

6.  But  a  single  objection  can  be  urged  to  this,  i.  e., 
that  the  Ordinances  are  but  apart  of  those  duties  entrusted 
to  the  Churches,  and  that  they  may  be  sacrificed  for  the 
good  of  the  whole  j  as  for  example,  to  promote  Christian 
Charity. 

The  points  at  issue  are  in  fact  these.  1st.  Have  we,  as 
Churches,  a  right,  practically,  to  separate  and  disjoin  sym- 
bols and  things  signified ;  to  invert,  omit,  or  alter  any  of 
them  ?  And  2nd.  If  we  have  the  right,  is  it  one  that  can 
be  safely  exercised  ?  Can  the  constitution  of  the  Churches 
be  improved  ?  Will  the  body  and  the  soul  be  better  sun- 
dered ?  Or  can  even  a  member  of  the  body  be  spared 
without  injury?  Are  not  bone  and  marrow,  joint  and 
sinew,  flesh  and  blood,  nerve  and  tendon,  so  wondrously 
and  mysteriously  bound  together,  that  all  are  needed,  for 
any  to  perform  their  functions  perfectly  ?  So  are  ordi- 
nances and  doctrines,  symbols  and  things  signified,  means 
of  grace  and  the  grace  of  means,  things  spiritual  and  things 
outward,  all  bound  and  blended  together,  and  committed  to 
the  Churches  to  keep  and  maintain,  and  propagate  through- 
out the  whole  earth. 

7.  One  word  more.  In  a  former  part  of  the  work,  we 
have  said  that  we  did  not  unchurch  other  denominations. 
Nor  do  we.  We  will  not  deny  the  claims  of  any  body  of 
evangelical  Christians,  organized  for  maintaining  social 
worship,  to  be  considered  a  Christian  Church.  Not  a 
regular  Church  indeed.  Still  we  do  not  doubt  that  such 
assemblies  realize  many  Church  blessings,  particularly  this, 
that  when  they  gather  together,  though  but  two  or  three, 
in  the  name  of  Jesus,  He  is  with  them. 

23* 


270  COMMUNION. 

But  then  it  cannot  be  forgotten  that  privileges  and  duties 
go  together.  They  must  not  be  sundered.  They  are  both 
links  of  the  same  chain.  To  all  evangelical  Churches 
therefore,  we  make  this  appeal.  We  feel  that  a  great  re- 
ormation  is  needed,  one  wide-spread  throughout  Christen- 
dom, in  regard  to  Baptism.  Great  abuses  have  crept  into 
its  administration,  defeating  its  entire  object.  The  sys- 
tem of  Pedobaptism,  as  a  system,  has  been  the  embodiment, 
and  is  now  the  main  support  of  some  of  the  most  cardinal 
errors  that  have  ever  afflicted  Christendom ;  such  as  Bap- 
tismal Regeneration,  and  an  unconverted  Church  member- 
ship and  Ministry.*  So  far  as  its  influence  extends,  it 
sweeps  the  world  into  the  Church,  and  keeps  thousands 
upon  thousands  from  expecting  or  praying  for  any  other 
regeneration  than  that  of  baptism.  So  completely  has 
baptism  been  perverted  from  its  original  intention,  which 
was  to  draw  a  line  between  Christians  and  the  world ;  so 
completely  has  it  been  changed  in  the  course  of  centuries, 
both  as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  administered,  and  the  sub- 
jects who  receive  it,  that  it  is,  as  generally  given, — a 
nullity. 

8.  To  the  Churches  of  Christ,  as  such,  belongs  the 
solemn  task  of  restoring  it  to  its  original  position.  The 
only  object  of  Baptist  Churches,  in  the  ground  they  take 
on  the  subject  of  Communion,  is  to  keep  the  ordinances, 
as  they  were  originally  delivered,  and  to  revive  their  pri- 
mitive use.  If  it  is  not  the  duty  of  Churches,  as  Churches, 
to  promote  this  reform  and  restoration  of  primitive  Bap- 
tism, upon  whom  does  the  obligation  devolve  ?  Our  desire 
to  see  this  change,  is  from  a  love,  not  of  names  or  sects, 
or  parties,  but  of  a  pure  Christianity.     We  are  not  acting 

*  See  Appendix  M.  j 


APPEAL   TO    CHURCHES   AND    CHRISTIANS.       271 

in  antagonism  to  other  Evangelical  Christians,  of  whatever 
name.  The  cause  in  which  we  are  all  engaged,  is  one. 
We  are  different  divisions  of  the  same  army.  We  are  all 
Christian  brethren,  if  we  are  Christ's.  Our  position  is  not 
taken  out  of  opposition  to  any  who  love  Christ,  but  to  pro- 
mote his  cause,  in  what  we  believe,  and  feel  sure  is  the 
best  way.  We  would,  in  all  the  warmth  and  brotherhood 
of  Christian  affection,  urge  a  solemn  sense  of  the  relation 
they  sustain  to  this  matter,  upon  all  Pedobaptist  Churches, 
and  entreat  them  to  examine  the  whole  subject  afresh,  and 
defer  baptism,  as  Tertullian  insists,  until  it  is  asked  for^ 
and  can  be  used  as  a  true  sign  of  the  admission  of  a 
penitent  believer,  into  the  Communion  of  the  Church. 
Let  it  ever  be  administered  by  immersion,  so  that  each  of 
those  who  receive  it  will  be  able  to  say,  as  originally,  ^'  We 
are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism. ^^  We  urge  this  appeal 
more  earnestly,  both  because  this  is  the  only  way  by  which 
this  difficulty  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  can  ever  be 
adjusted  satisfactorily;  and  because  this  reformation,  if  it 
were  simultaneously  adopted  by  the  Churches,  would,  w^e 
are  convinced,  have  the  most  powerful  effect  in  promoting 
a  general  revival  of  pure  religion  throughout  Christendom. 
9.  (2.)  In  regard  to  the  members  of  such  Churches,  as 
iTidividuals,  we  may  be  permitted  to  add  a  few  remarks, 
for  to  each  one,  as  a  part  of  the  whole,  is  his  share  of  the 
responsibility  and  custody  of  the  ordinances  committed. 
Very  many  of  these  persons  have  lost  all  faith  in  Infant 
Baptism.  Numbers  even  do  not  practise  it ;  or  if  they  do, 
it  is  with  much  hesitation.  They  are  ready  to  admit,  in 
general  terms,  that  the  Baptists  are  right  in  everything 
except  their  Strict  Communion.     They  are  members  of 

*  Tertullian  cle  Baptismo,  18. 


272  COMMUNION. 

Pedobaptist  Churdaes,  and  yet  have  great  misgivings  that 
they  themselves  are  not  truly  baptized.  But  they  have 
been  taught  that  Baptism  is  a  subject  of  no  importance, 
and  there  they  rest.  If  this  work  should  fall  under  the 
eye  of  any  such,  the  Author  trusts,  it  may  at  least  induce 
them  to  regard  the  correct  observance  of  religious  ordi- 
nances as  a  matter  of  solemn  responsibility,  and  to  use 
their  influence  and  example  to  promote  the  restoration  of 
Baptism  to  its  primitive  position  in  the  Churches  of  Christ. 
How  many  have  been  converted  by  witnessing  this  ordi- 
nance properly  administered !  Who  can  say  what  might 
be  the  influence  arising  from  the  conscientious  action  of  a 
single  person  ?  Who  will  dare  to  keep  back  that  influ- 
ence, whatever  it  may  be  ?  Surrounded  as  we  all  are  by 
a  complicated  network  of  associations  and  influences,  per- 
chance a  brother  or  a  sister,  a  husband  or  a  wife,  a  parent 
or  a  child,  might  be  awakened  by  the  baptismal  self-con- 
secration of  so  near  a  relative.  Let  no  sluggishness  hin- 
der ;  no  fear  of  man ;  no  love,  even  of  Christians,  keep  us 
from  the  supreme  love  of  Christ.  Were  all  who  noAv  neg- 
lect Infant  Baptism,  and  hold  generally  to  Baptist  senti- 
ments, to  act  up  to  them  consistently  and  firmly,  it  is 
impossible  to  conjecture  the  result.  In  England  at  this 
moment,  one  individual,  by  a  bold  avowal  of  his  change 
of  sentiments,  by  abandoning  what  he  saw  to  be  errone- 
ous, throwing  the  weight  of  his  influence  on  the  side  of 
truth,  and  being  baptized,  has,  perhaps,  rendered  the 
separation  of  Church  and  State  inevitable. 

10.  (3.)  And  here,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  add  a 
word,  finally,  upon  the  special  obligations  resting  on 
Christian  Ministers,  in  regard  to  the  entire  subject  of  Or- 
dinances. They  are  their  appointed  administrators.  To 
those  who  can  conscientiously  and  firmly  say  that  they 


APPEAL    TO    MINISTERS.  273 

have  examined  this  subject  impartially,  and  have  ever  had 
undouhting  conviction  of  the  Scripturalness  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism, we  have  nothing  here  to  say.  But  what  we  fear  in 
regard  to  this  subject,  is  not  investigation,  but  indiffer- 
ence. We  are  anxious  that  it  should  not  be  laid  aside  as 
a  matter  of  no  importance.  How  can  a  minister  dip  his 
finger  into  the  font,  and  deliberately  put  the  water  on  the 
face  of  an  unconscious  infant,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  doubting  all  the  time,  and  perhaps 
feeling  inwardly  conscious  that  this  is  not  a  New  Testa- 
ment Baptism ;  thus  helping  to  carry  out  a  system,  which, 
though  now  comparatively  harmless  in  some  of  the  more 
evangelical  denominations,  is  still,  not  only  in  the  dark 
corners  of  Europe,  but  also  in  this  country,  one  of  the 
main  pillars  of  Romish  superstition,  and  of  all  mere  tra- 
ditional religion  as  opposed  to  that  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment? 

11.  Let  not  any  Christian,  of  whatever  name,  feel  hurt 
at  the  plainness  of  these  remarks.  They  originate  not  in 
indifference  to  the  feelings  of  a  brother,  much  less  in  that 
bitterness  that  could  regard  any  fellow-Christian  as  a  foe. 
They  are  not  uttered  in  the  bigotry  of  a  partizan,  or  for 
sectarian  effect.  They  are  made  in  the  frankness  of  a  sin- 
cere affection,  one  that  raises  all  who  possess  it,  above  the 
atmosphere  of  sect  or  party.  If  we  are  allied  to  Christ, 
we  must  be  allied  and  not  opposed  to  each  other.  We 
are  arrayed  in  the  same  army,  and  marching  against  the 
same  enemy.  The  differences  that  separate  us  are  as  no- 
thing to  the  strong  ties  that  unite  us.  For  we  are  one  in 
the  heart  of  love  to  a  common  Father,  in  the  faith  of  a 
common  Redeemer,  and  in  spiritual  consecration  to  the 
interests  of  his  Universal  Church. 

12.  Where  those  interests  are  concerned,  all  true  Chris- 


274  COMMUNION. 

tians,  of  whatever  name,  liave  awakened  in  them  a  love,  infi- 
nitely more  warm  and  glowing  than  their  attachment  to  any 
peculiar  views  of  ordinances.  These  respect  the  means,  but 
that  is  the  end.  These  are  the  symbols  and  instruments 
of  Communion,  but  that  is  something  higher  and  holier, 
for  it  is  the  Spiritual  Communion  itself.  We  love  Bap- 
tism because  it  is  an  instituted  symbol  of  union  with 
Christ  and  means  of  grace.  We  love  the  Lord's  Supper, 
because  it  is  also  an  instituted  symbol  and  means  of  the 
nearest  Communion  earth  will  admit  with  Him  who  died 
for  us.  But  we  love  the  Communion  itself  better  than 
the  symbol,  the  end  better  than  the  means. 

And  as  we  have  ourselves,  so  we  feel  confident  all  true 
Christians  have  love  to  Christ,  and  to  His  cause,  so  infi- 
nitely transcending  that  of  all  mere  symbols,  that  we 
venture  to  speak  of  these  latter  with  so  much  freedom. 
It  is  because  we  believe  most  fully,  that  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren  love  the  cause  of  Christ  more  than  Pedobaptism, 
that  we  entreat  them  to  reconsider  and  abandon  the  latter, 
for  the  sake  of  the  former.  What,  compared  with  the 
growth  of  that  heavenly  kingdom  founded  by  the  Saviour, 
what,  compared  with  the  salvation  of  a  single  soul,  are  all 
names,  and  sects,  and  parties  ?  They  are  but  as  "  the 
small  dust  of  the  balance.^^  Time  will  soon  have  swept 
the  most  of  them  away. 

18.  Let  any  student  glance  his  eye  over  the  list  of  sects 
presented  in  a  text  book  of  Church  History ;  how  uncan- 
did  and  irrelevant  to  the  interests  of  truth  do  their  squab- 
bles for  the  most  part  now  appear !  And  what  has 
become  of  the  mass  of  these  ?  After  dancing  for  a  while  like 
a  bubble  on  the  wave,  they  have  been  dissipated  into  thin 
air.  So,  too,  when  some  future  Church  Historian  writes 
down  the  history  of  our  age,  what  will  then  be  thought 


GREAT    PRINCIPLES   AT   WORK.  275 

of  most  of  the  parties  and  names  and  denominations 
which  now  so  agitate  Christendom  ?  Time  will  have 
killed  them.  Meantime,  there  are  in  each  age,  some  one 
or  two  great  principles  at  work  among  the  masses.  These 
are  long  treated  as  insignificant  by  those  of  estab- 
lished reputation.  They  work  their  way  silently  and 
slowly,  with  a  force  very  inadequately  represented,  even 
by  the  progress  of  any  party.  They  move  along,  not  like 
the  tornado  that  sweeps  and  levels  everything  at  once, 
but  calmly  and  quietly,  unseen,  but  effectually,  like  a 
change  in  the  seasons.  As  the  breaking  up  of  the  frosts 
and  snows  of  winter;  as  the  opening  of  the  buds  and 
blossoms  beneath  the  warm  sun,  so  do  these  ideas  and 
principles  gradually  prevail  after  many  apparent  reverses, 
and  then,  silently  and  without  controversy,  carry  away 
sects,  and  names,  and  parties,  just  as  the  opening  up  of  a 
river  in  spring,  carries  off,  without  molesting,  the  chips 
and  straw  that  lie  upon  the  field  of  ice  that  covered  it. 
Thus  originally  did  Christianity  arise  and  sweep  clean  the 
Pantheon  of  its  gods.  Thus  has  every  great  reforming 
truth  arisen  since.  In  morals  we  have,  in  our  own  times, 
all  beheld,  in  the  spread  of  Temperance,  one  idea  sweep 
before  it  the  most  inveterate  prejudices,  the  oldest  habits 
and  customs  of  hospitality. 

14.  In  religion,  one  or  two  great  ideas  are  evidently  at 
work  among  the  masses  of  thinking  men.  One  is  what 
may  be  termed  the  essential  voluntariness  of  all  true  Reli- 
gion, and,  therefore,  of  all  true  Church  Memhership. — 
That  piety  is  not  a  thing  of  mere  education,  to  be  learned 
by  rote  simply  through  creed  and  catechism ;  not  a  thing 
to  be  professed  by  proxy,  or  indeed  to  be  professed  at  all 
without  the  surrender  of  a  man's  own  heart  to  God;  and 
that  all  forms  and  rites  without  that  are  worthless.     It 


276  COMMUNION. 

is  evident,  on  a  moment's  reflection,  that  either  this  idea 
must  destroy  Pedobaptism,  or  else  Pedobaptism  must  de- 
stroy it.  Which  does  the  pious  Christian  wish  to  be  vic- 
torious ?  Certain  as  destiny  it  is  that  the  aggressive  prin- 
ciple will  here  prove  triumphant. 

15.  There  is  another  great  truth  at  work  with  progres- 
sive power,  throughout  the  whole  world,  both  in  Church 
and  State.  It  is  the  'principle  of  self-government,  k^  the 
most  proper  of  all  authorities,  because  resting  with  great- 
est faith  and  most  immediately  upon  the  universal  govern- 
ment of  Grod.  To  that  all  the  revolutions  of  Europe 
are  tending;  to  that,  the  peaceful  extension  of  our  own 
national  principles.  It  were  as  useless  to  attempt  to 
silence  the  thunder  by  a  word,  or  to  roll  back  the  falling 
waters  of  Niagara,  as  to  stay  the  progress  of  these  opini- 
ons. The  world  is  full  of  them,  and  the  Churches  are 
full  of  them. 

16.  We  believe  that  whoever  examines  carefully  will 
perceive  that  our  principles,  as  Baptists,  present  the  most 
complete  living  embodiment  of  these  ideas.*  Of  the 
spread  and  prevalence,  therefore,  of  our  denominational 
views,  we  feel  assured ;  both  because  they  are  true,  and 
because  they  contain  just  those  truths  which  the  Christian 
world  of  the  present  age  needs,  those  truths  for  which  it 
hungers  and  thirsts,  which  it  will,  therefore,  surely  incor- 
porate, and  upon  which  it  will  grow  and  thrive. 

17.  These  great  changes,  as  to  the  ideas  which  agitate 
the  Christian  world,  in  each  successive  age,  are  all  pro- 
gressive. They  never  go  backward.  As  the  revolutions 
and  changes  which  the  physical  surface  of  the  earth  has 
undergone  at  different  periods,  even   to   every  speck   of 

*  See  Appendix  K. 


THE   HOPE   OF   TRUE   CHRISTIANS.  277 

granite  and  every  layer  of  mica  that  has  crumbled  beneath 
the  finger  of  Time,  do  all  modify  the  face  of  the  globe, 
and  each  modification  exhibits  progressive  order  and 
beauty ;  so  do  these  alterations  and  convulsions  of  opinion, 
that  seem  to  come  blindly,  and  that  overturn  and  destroy 
creeds  and  systems  with  a  ruthless  hand,  spring  not  from 
ohance,  but  from  the  intervention  of  a  Higher  Power.  They 
are  parts  of  a  mighty  system  of  beneficence  and  progress 
in  the  Church,  and  a  new  illustration  of  the  truth,  that 
^'  the  goodness  of  God  is  over  all  his  works."  Each  of 
these  embodies  all  that  went  before,  and  is  necessary  to 
all  the  future  developments  of  the  glory  and  beauty  of 
Christianity.  Nor  do  we  ever  labor  so  successfully,  as 
when  in  accordance  with  the  movements  and  tendencies  of 
providence  and  grace.  That  Christianity  will  produce 
effects,  such  as  we  can  now  hardly  anticipate,  changes  that 
will  alter  the  whole  aspect  of  society,  we  may  not  doubt. 

18.  The  true  Christian,  however,  while  he  labors  on 
with  hope  for  the  good  and  progress  of  the  cause  of  Christ 
on  earth,  looks  for  his  home  and  his  final  reward  beyond 
all  Churches  of  earth,  even  the  most  perfect,  to  the  one 
glorious  and  Universal  Church  of  God  in  heaven, — the 
New  Jerusalem.  The  beauties  of  that  heavenly  city  will 
increasingly  fix  his  gaze,  and  fire  his  heart ; — that  city,  that 
has  "  no  need  of  the  sun,  neither  of  the  moon  to  shine  in 
it,  for  the  glory  of  God  lightens  it,  and  the  Lamb  is  the 
light  .thereof.''  There,  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  per- 
fect are  fast  congregating.  In  that  blessed  assembly  there 
are  no  convulsions,  no  barriers,  no  changes ;  but  the  state 
of  bliss  which  it  exhibits,  is  the  embodiment  of  all  the 
most  glorious  results  of  every  conflict  of  the  people  of  God 
here  below.  "  These  are  they,"  said  the  angel,  describing 
the  saints  in  glory,  ''  that  came  out  of  great  tribulation, 
24 


278  COMMUNION. 

and  have  washed  their  robeS;  and  made  them  white  in  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb." 

19-  The  glory  and  honor  of  the  whole  Church  triumph- 
ant will  derive  no  small  measure  of  its  lustre  from  the 
perfect  development  of  that  knowledge,  wisdom  and  love, 
obtained  by  Saints  in  the  struggles  and  experiences  of  all 
ages  and  of  all  climes.  To  that  season,  and  to  that  city, 
as  the  result,  in  part,  of  all  the  longings  and  labors  of 
each  individual  after  the  truth,  the  believer  looks  forward, 
with  increasing  confidence  and  hope,  and  learns  to  bear 
with  patience,  and  work  on  with  energy,  amid  the  jarrings 
and  disorders  of  the  present  state. 

It  is  a  comforting  and  an  animating  thought,  that  on  this 
very  earth,  now  so  disfigured  by  the  scaffolding  and  rubbish, 
so  disturbed  by  the  noise  of  the  hammer  fashioning  out 
the  stones,  and  the  confusion  of  builders  running  to  and 
fro ;  when  it  has  been  purified  by  the  final  convulsions  of 
the  last  great  day,  the  heavenly  city  shall  at  length  appear, 
in  all  the  magnificence  of  its  goodly  proportions.  "  I  saw,'* 
says  the  blessed  Apostle,  '^  the  holy  city,  the  New  Jeru- 
salem, coming  down  from  Grod,  out  of  heaven.  And  I 
heard  a  great  voice,  saying,  Beholed  th  tabernacle  of  God 
is  with  men,  and  he  will  dwell  with  them;  and  he  shall 
wipe  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes ;  and  there  shall  be  no 
more  death,  neither  sorrow  nor  crying,  neither  shall  there 
be  any  more  pain :  for  the  former  things  are  passed  away."* 

*,Rev.  21  :  2,3,4. 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


A.— Page  23. 
"  The  first  instance  that  I  remember  of  that  sort  of  in- 
ward sweet  delight  in  God  and  divine  things^  that  I  have 
lived  in  since,  was  on  reading  those  words,  1  Tim.  1  :  17. 
^Now,  unto  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the 
only  wise  God,  be  honor  and  glory  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen.'  As  I  read  these  words,  there  came  into  my  soul, 
and  was,  as  it  were,  diffused  through  it,  a  sense  of  the 
glory  of  the  Divine  Being,  a  new  sense,  quite  different 
from  anything  I  ever  experienced  before.  Never  any 
words  of  Scripture  seemed  to  me  as  these  words  did.  I 
thought  within  myself  how  excellent  a  Being  that  is,  and 
how  happy  I  should  be,  if  I  might  enjoy  him,  and  be  taken 
up  to  him  in  heaven,  and  be  as  it  were  swallowed  up  in 
him  forever  !  I  kept  saying  over  these  words  of  Scrip- 
ture to  myself,  and  went  to  pray  to  God  that  I  might  enjoy 
him,  and  prayed  in  a  manner  quite  different  from  what  I 

used  to  do,  with  a  new  sort  of  affection I  began  to 

have  a  new  kind  of  apprehension  and  idea  of  Christ,  and 
the  work  of  redemption,  and  the  glorious  way  of  salvation 
by  him.  An  inward  sweet  sense  of  these  things  at  times 
came  into  my  heart,  and  my  soul  was  led  away  in  j^l^asant 
views  and  contemplations  of  them.  And  my  mind  was 
greatly  engaged  to  spend  my  time  in  reading  and  medi- 
24* 


282  APPENDIX. 

tating  on  Christ,  on  tlie  beauty  and  excellency  of  his  per- 
son, and  the  lovely  way  of  salvation  by  free  grace  in  him. 
I  found  no  books  so  delightful  to  me,  as  those  that  treated 

of  these  subjects I  found  from  time  to  time  an  inward 

sweetness  that  would  carry  me  away  in  my  contemplations. 
This  I  know  not  how  to  express  otherwise,  than  by  a  calm 
delightful  abstraction  of  the  soul  from  all  the  concerns  of 
this  world;  and  sometimes  a  kind  of  vision  or  fixed  ideas 
and  imaginations  of  being  alone  in  the  mountains,  or  some 
solitary  wilderness,  far  from  all  mankind,  sweetly  con- 
versing with  Christ,  and  rapt  or  swallowed  up  in  Grod. 
The  sense  I  had  of  divine  things,  would  often  of  a  sudden, 
kindle  up  an  ardor  in  my  soul,  that  I  know  not  how  to 
express." — (Memoirs  of  Jonathan  Edwards,  by  Sereno  E. 
Dwight,  chap.  1.) 


B.— Page  36. 

It  has  been  very  frequently  maintained,  or  rather  taken 
for  granted,  that  the  term  Church  is  sometimes  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  a  third  sense,  i.  e.  for  tlie  Church 
Universal  Visible,  composed  of  all  those,  throughout  the 
world,  who  make  a  credible  profession  of  true  religion. 
This  subject  has  been  ably  treated;  and  the  idea  of  a 
Visible  Church  Universal,  in  any  literal  sense  of  the  term 
Church,  like  that  maintained  by  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason,  complete- 
ly refuted  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dagg  in  a  work  of  Rev.  J.  L. 
Reynolds,  entitled  ^'The  Kingdom  of  God,"  (pp.  186-195,) 
to  which  the  reader  is  referred.  Even  should  it  be  granted 
that  the  word  Church  is  in  one  or  two  places  in  the  New 
Testament,  used  by  an  obvious  figure,  for  the  body  of 
Professors  of  religion  on  earth  as  such,  it  would  not  impair 


APPENDIX.  283 

the  force  of  the  distinction  drawn  from  the  more  regular 
and  literal  application  of  the  word,  between  our  fellowship 
with  a  particular  Church,  and  with  all  other  professed 
believers. 

Of  the  five  or  six  passages,  (^.  e.  Acts  2  :  47,  and  8  ;  3 ; 
1  Cor.  15  :  9 ;  Rom.  10  :  32,)  produced  by  Dr.  Mason,  in 
support  of  his  idea  of  an  organized  Universal  Church  Visi- 
ble, embracing  all  who  profess  true  religion ;  as  Dr.  Dagg 
has  shown,  three  refer  to  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  before 
the  establishment  of  any  church  elsewhere,  and  when, 
therefore,  it  was  of  necessity,  for  a  time,  the  only  visible 
Christian  body.  Rom.  16  :  23  :  Gaius,  "  the  host  of  the 
whole  church  ;^^  and  1  Cor.  10  :  23 :  "  Grive  none  offence  to 
the  Church  of  God;  "import,''  as  Dr.  Dagg  says,  "  hospita- 
lity to  saints  generally,  and  offence  to  saints  generally,'' 
i.  e.  not  those  of  a  particular  church  exclusively.  He 
adds,  that  it  is  "  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  they  belong 
to  a  Visible  Church  Catholic,  in  order  to  be  entertained  or 
offended,''  and  appears  to  suppose  that  we  might  rather 
consider  the  term  as  applying  to  the  general  assembly  and 
Church  of  the  firstborn,  entertained  in  the  persons  of  those 
of  its  members  who  could  thus  be  ministered  to ;  as  the 
Saviour,  in  Matt.  25 :  45,  represents  himself  fed,  clothed 
and  visited  in  the  persons  of  his  disciples.  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  express  an  opinion  on  this  particular  point.  It  is 
one  of  great  nicety. 

To  suppose  the  term  Church,  however,  applied  h^/  a 
figure  collectively  to  those  who  were  generally  members  of 
the  Invisible  Church,  and  also  members  of  some  particu- 
lar Visible  Church,  and  who  might  temporarily,  therefore, 
without  inconvenience,  be  regarded  as  members  of  any 
body  of  Christians  with  whom  they  sojourned,  or  were 
even  in  the  habit  of  being  so  regarded ;  would  be  far  enough 


284  APPENDIX. 

from  involving  tlie  idea  of  a  regularly  organized  Church 
Universal  Visible.  Dr.  Mason's  theory  is,  therefore,  un- 
tenable. There  may  be  a  figurative  use  of  the  word  Church 
in  two  or  three  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  without 
all  their  ideas  of  a  regular  organization  being  involved. 

In  some  points  of  view,  unquestionably,  those  who  make 
a  credible  profession  of  the  Christian  faith  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  lohole.  They  are  a  body,  distinct  from  the 
world,  but  operating  upon  it  with  a  certain  degree  of  uni- 
formity, and  with  immense  power.  This  body  is  distinct 
from  the  Invisible  Church  Universal,  in  that  all  who  are 
l^rofessors  of  religion,  and  some,  therefore,  who  are  only 
professors  are  mixed  up  with  true  Christians  in  the  pre- 
sent world.  It  is  distinct  from  any  particular  visible 
Church,  since  it  embraces  members  of  all  truly  Christian 
Churches,  throughout  the  whole  world.  Such  a  body  as  this, 
however,  cannot  in  any  other  than  a  merely  figurative  sense 
be  called  a  Church,  since  it  never  can  or  does  assemble, 
has  no  visible  earthly  representation,  government,  or  or- 
ganization; all  its  oneness  arises  from  the  g-eneral  same- 
ness of  the  aim,  and  actuating  principle  of  all  its  members, 
i.  e.  allegiance  to  Christ.  Who  would  think  of  consider- 
ing all  the  various  tribes  and  hordes  that  poured  from 
Northern  into  Southern  Europe  for  successive  centuries, 
Huns,  Goths  and  Vandals,  as  one  literal  army !  And  yet 
considering  the  sameness  of  principle  by  which  they  were 
actuated,  the  general  similarity  of  course  they  pursued, 
and  the  oneness  of  result  brought  about,  it  would  be  quite 
appropriate 'for  the  historian  to  speak  of  them,  figuratively, 
as  the  successive  waves  of  an  overflowing  tide,  or  the  seve- 
ral detachments  of  an  immense  army.  Nor  would  any 
one  think  of  inferring  from  such  a  figure  in  Gibbon,  that 
the  historian  had  intended  to  represent  all  the  bands  as 


APPENDIX.  285 

organized  into  a  confederate  whole,  acting  in  concert,  and 
moving  in  detachments  only  by  mutual  agreement. 

There  is  another  form  of  expression,  much  more  fre- 
quently occurring  in  the  New  Testament,  in  such  a  connec- 
tion as  to  seem  intended  to  express  the  oneness  of  all  who 
profess  the  religion  of  Christ.  It  is  the  phrase,  "  King- 
dom of  Heaven,^'  or  ^^  Kingdom  of  God,"  (for  they  are 
continually  used  synonymously.)  In  nearly  all  the  cases 
in  which  these  phrases  occur  in  the  four  Gospels  they  refer 
to  that  kingdom  established  on  earth  by  Christ,  and  which 
perhaps  might  be  fairly  expressed  in  other  words  by  "  the 
Christian  dispensation. '^  As  Matt.  3:2."  The  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  at  hand."  The  figure  is  obvious  and  just. 
This  kingdom  consists  of  all  those  living  under  the  domi- 
nion of  Heavenly  or  Spiritual  principles,  and  all  acknow- 
ledging one  Supreme  Head,  Christ. — Col.  1:  14;  Rom. 
14:  17. 

The  only  point,  however,  in  which  we  are  here  interested, 
is  to  ascertain  if  the  phrase  iSaoaela  t^v  ovpav^v  is  ever  used 
to  denote  what  has  been  termed  the  Visible  Church  Univer- 
sal, i.  e.  the  professed  followers  of  Christ  on  earth  as  a 
body.  The  word  rendered  kingdom,  ^am-ktla,  as  Dr.  Campbell 
has,  with  great  beauty  and  discrimination  shown,  has  two 
senses,  one  referring  to  the  duration,  the  other  to  the  place 
over  which  the  authority  is  extended.  The  first  he  trans- 
lates "  reign,''  the  second  "  kingdom."  The  difference  of 
sense  is  obvious  in  such  a  case  as  this,  "  The  reign  of  hea- 
ven is  approaching."  We  cannot  say  that  a  ^  kingdom'  is 
drawing  near,  but  we  may  say  that  a  *  reign^  is  approaching, 
and  thus  accordingly  in  most  cases,  he  translates  the  word, 
rendered  in  our  version  '  kingdom.'  Sometimes,  as  for  in- 
stance, when  the  state  of  perfect  felicity  of  the  righteous 
is  intended,  he  retains  ^  kingdom,'  as  more  exactly  expres- 


286  APPENDIX. 

sive  of  the  thought  of  the  original.  To  apply  now  these 
principles  to  such  a  passage  as  Matt.  13  :  41;  (see  also  5  : 
24  and  47,)  He  ^^  shall  gather  out  of  his  hingdom  them 
which  do  iniquity."  This  Dr.  Campbell  translates,  and 
with  apparent  justice,  ^kingdom/  not  ^  reign.'  This 
clause  would  seem  to  mean,  not  that  such  characters  ^  shall 
be  removed  from  under  the  kingly  dominion  of  Christ/ 
but  ^  removed  from  the  society  of  those  under  professed 
allegiance  to  Christ.'  It  will  be  said,  however,  that  all 
the  parables  of  this  chapter  refer  to  the  progress  of  the 
dominion  of  Christ  in  the  earth, — that  he  claims  the  world 
as  his  of  right,  that  its  kingdoms  shall  all  become  his 
kingdom,  out  of  which  he  at  last  gathers  his  enemies ;  in 
other  words,  that  the  parables  of  the  Tares  and  of  the  Net 
are  intended  rather  to  account  for  the  Divine  sufferance  of 
sinners  in  the  world,  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
than  the  permission  of  hypocrites  in  the  Church;  and  this 
view  is  probably  correct.  Robinson,  in  his  Lexicon,  how- 
ever, quotes  the  above,  and  several  other  passages  as  re- 
lating to  ^^  the  external  form  of  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom, 
as  embodied  in  the  Visible  Church,  and  the  universal  reign 
of  the  Grospel."  Neander,  in  his  Planting  and  Training, 
Book  6,  chap.  1,  on  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Grod,  (Ryland's  Translation,  p.  279,)  says  there,  perhaps 
accurately,  "  the  kingdom  of  Christ  coincides  with  the  idea 
of  the  Church  existing  in  the  hearts  of  men,  the  invisible 
Church,  the  totality  of  the  operations  of  Christianity  on 
mankind."  The  visible  body  of  Christ's  followers  so  nearly 
corresponded  to  the  invisible,  originally,  and  in  the  purpose 
for  which  each  was  intended,  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  distin- 
guish where  the  one  is  meant,  and  where  the  other,  distinc- 
tively in  Scripture.  Nor  am  I  sure  it  can  be  shown  that 
^'  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  ^^  of  heaven,"  is  anywhere  put 


APPENDIX.  287 

for  the  visible  company  of  Christians  upon  earth,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  invisible  company  of  true  believers,  un- 
less in  the  Parables.  ^^  The  totality  of  the  operating  power 
of  Christianity  on  mankind/'  is  the  idea  which  ever 
accompanies  the  use  of  this  phrase. 

The  following  remarks,  given  on  the  authority  of  Count 
Montholon,  as  uttered  by  Napoleon,  at  St.  Helena,  portray 
with  singular  accuracy  and  graphic  force,  the  true  nature 
and  wonderful  power  of  that  kingdom. 

"Alexander,  Caesar,  Charlemagne  and  myself  founded 
empires,  but  upon  what  did  we  rest  the  creations  of  our 
genius?  Upon  force.  Jesus  Christ,  alone,  founded  his 
empire  upon  love^  and  at  this  hour,  millions  of  men  would 
die  for  him. 

"It  was  not  a  day  or  a  battle  which  achieved  the  triumph 
of  the  Christian  religion  in  the  world.  No;  it  was  a  long 
war,  a  contest  for  three  centuries,  begun  by  the  Apostles, 
then  continued  by  the  flood  of  Christian  generations.  In 
this  war,  all  the  kings  and  potentates  of  earth  were  on  one 
side )  on  the  other  I  see  no  army  but  a  mysterious  force, 
wme  men  scattered  here  and  there  in  all  parts  of  the  worlds 
and  luho  have  no  other  rallying  point  than  a  common  faith 
in  the  mysteries  of  the    Cross. 

"  I  die  before  my  time,  and  my  body  will  be  given  back 
to  the  earth,  to  become  food  for  worms.  Such  is  the  fate 
which  so  soon  awaits  him  who  has  been  called  the  great 
Napoleon.  What  an  abyss  between  my  deep  misery  and 
the  eternal  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  proclaimed,  loved 
and  adored,  and  which  is  extending  over  the  whole  earth  ! 
Call  you  this  dying  ?  Is  it  not  living,  rather  ?  The  death 
of  Christ  is  the  death  of  God.'' 

The  foregoing  remarks  on  the  expressions  ^  Church,'  and 
^  kingdom  of  heaven,'  will   show  why  the  fellowship  of 


288  APPENDIX. 

Cliurches_,  Denominations,  &c.,  is  not  more  specifically 
treated  of  in  these  pages.  Because  no  collection  of  these 
bodies  is  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  a  Church,  and 
therefore  we  cannot  have  a  Church  fellowship  with  it  as 
such.  If  any  of  the  members  of  one  body  are  brought 
into  company  with  another  Church  of  the  same  views,  they 
may  either  permanently  change  their  relations,  or  be  con- 
sidered temporarily  as  having  done  so,  if  all  parties  so 
desire,  and  thus  enjoy  Church  privileges.  But  Churches 
as  such,  being  responsible  to  their  Great  Head,  are  essen- 
tially independent  and  separate  bodies.  That  they  may 
rightly,  and  ought  to,  interchange  the  most  fraternal  feel- 
ings with  other  bodies  of  Christians,  as  such,  cannot  be 
doubted ;  but  then  it  is  not  a  Church  fellowship,  but 
something  distinct  from  it ;  it  is  a  fellowship,  closer  and 
stronger  in  exact  proportion,  as  we  think  we  see  through 
the  pi'ofession  of  supreme  allegiance  to  Christ  (which  all 
have  in  common)  indications  of  conformity  to  the  laws  and 
spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  a  fellowship,  therefore,  of  every 
variety  and  degree.  With  those  Christians,  Churches, 
or  Denominations,  most  closely  agreeing  with  our  views  of 
divine  truth,  it  will  be  very  near  and  fraternal,  while  with 
those  in  which  truth  and  error,  the  pious  and  the  irre- 
ligious, are  all  amalgamated,  it  may  hardly  exist  at  all. 

By  this  view  we  are  saved  from  all  trouble  of  deciding 
which  are,  and  which  are  not  true  Christian  Churches, 
or  when  a  particular  body  so  far  apostatizes,  as  to  lose  claim 
to  that  title  altogether.  Each  Church,  i.  e..  Christian 
congregation,  and  each  Christian  for  himself,  are  left  to 
judge  how  far  to  carry  their  Christian  fellowship  with  other 
bodies  than  their  own,  according  as  they  perceive  in  them 
obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Saviour.  In  proportion  as 
such  persons  seem  to  walk  according  to  the  spirit  and  re- 


APPENDIX.  289 

vealed  will  of  Christ,  they  will  be  regarded  as  forming 
parts  of  that  kingdom,  set  up  on  the  earth ;  and  whose 
sole  point  of  centralization,  is  Christ.  All  such  will  feel 
united  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  while  quite  distinct  in 
Church  relations. 


C— Page  42. 

I  find  the  following  placed  as  the  24th  Maxim  of  Con- 
fucius, in  a  work  labelled.  Ancient  Fragments  from  the 
Chinese,  &c.;  but  called  in  the  Title  page  "The  Phoenix,'* 
published  by  William  Gowan,  Chatham  Street,  New  York, 
1835.  The  work  does  not  appear  to  be  a  very  respectable 
authority ;  but  as  it  contains  some  genuine  and  curious 
fragments,  I  insert  the  quotation,  suspecting  it  will  prove 
to  be  of  much  later  date  than  is  professed  in  regard 
to  it. 

"  Do  unto  another  as  thou  wouldst  be  dealt  with  thyself. 
Thou  only  needest  this  law  alone ;  it  is  the  foundation  and 
principle  of  all  the  rest.'' 


D.— Page  68. 

The  following  account  given  by  the  Hon.  and  Rev. 
Baptist  W.  Noel,  at  the  water's  edge,  of  his  reasons  for 
embracing  Baptist  sentiments,  states  this  part  of  our 
views,  so  briefly  and  clearly,  that  I  insert  them  here  as 
given  in  a  recent  number  of  the  Christian  Watchman  and 
Beflector. 

"  Mr.  Noel  then  pointed  out  the  reasons  why  a  person 
who  is  unbaptized  should  be  baptized,  even  after  he  had 
made  a  profession  of  Jesus  Christ  in  other  ways,  and  stated 

25 


290  APPENDIX. 

the  ground  wliicli  had  led  him  to  obey  what  he  believed 
to  be  Christ's  command.  He  said,  that  after  he  had  fully 
weighed  every  considerable  argument  that  had  ever  been 
adduced  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  he  had  come  distinctly 
to  these  two  conclusions,  Avhich  appeared,  to  him  at  least, 
to  be  certain ;  ^ first,  that  Baptism  as  ordained  hy  Christ  is 
an  immersion  in  water j  a  heing  buried  in  ivater ;  and 
secondly,  that  immersion  is  meant  to  he  a  "profession  of  faith 
in  Christ/  Mr.  JSToel  observed,  if  those  two  conclusions 
were  correct — and  he  believed  they  would  completely  pre- 
vail with  the  Christian  world  eventually — that  it  followed 
that  a  person,  who  like  himself,  had  only  been  sprinkled 
in  infancy,  is  unbaptized;  because  such  a  person  had 
neither  been  immersed,  nor  had  he  made  a  baptismal  pro- 
fession of  faith,  and  these  two  things  constituted  Christian 
baptism.  So  that  if  these  conclusions  were  correct,  then 
he  and  others  who  had  been  only  sprinkled  in  infancy, 
were  in  neither  sense  baptized. 

^^  Among  the  reasons  which  had  led  him  to  embrace  be- 
lievers' baptism,  were  these ; — that  there  is  no  instance  in 
the  New  Testament  of  any  person  unbaptized,  after  the 
institution  of  Christian  baptism  by  our  Lord,  coming  to 
the  Lord's  Table ;  and  therefore,  if  we  continue  to  attend 
the  Lord's  Table,  without  being  baptized,  knowing  that 
Pedobaptism  is  not  the  baptism  appointed  by  Christ,  we 
act  contrary  to  all  the  precedents  of  the  New  Testament — 
that  Christ  has  required  a  baptismal  profession  of  faith, — 
and  that  our  blessed  Lord  has  set  us  an  example  in  this 
matter." — Watchman  and  Reflector,  Sep.  6,  1849. 


APPENDIX.  201 

E.— Page  60. 

There  are,  perhaps,  more  traces  of  the  idolatry  of  the 
outward  part  of  Baptism  in  the  writings  of  Augustine 
than  in  almost  any  of  the  Fathers,  certainly  than  in  any 
of  equal  spirituality.  In  his  account  of  the  baptism  of 
VictorinuS;  there  are  expressions  that  show  this  very  error. 
And  yet  who  can  read  the  account  of  it,  which  he  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  Simplicianus,  unaffected  ?  I  insert  it, 
curtailed  of  some  of  those  expressions,  as  an  illustration 
of  a  reverence  for  baptism,  of  which  it  would  not  hurt  us 
to  have  more. 

"  That  aged  man,  most  learned  and  skilled  in  the  lib- 
eral sciences,  and  who  had  read  and  weighed  so  many 
works  of  the  philosophers ;  the  instructor  of  so  many  no- 
ble senators  ;  who  also  as  a  monument  of  his  excellent  dis- 
charge of  office,  had  (which  men  of  this  world  esteem  a 
high  honour)  both  deserved  and  obtained  a  statue  in  the 
Roman  Forum,  he,  to  that  age,  was  a  worshipper  of  idols, 
and  a  partaker  of  the  sacrilegious  rites  to  which  almost 
all  the  nobility  of  Rome  were  given  up.'' 
"  0  Lord,  Lord,  which  hast  bowed  the  heavens  and 
come  down,  touched  the  mountains  and  they  did  smoke, 
by  what  means  didst  Thou  convey  Thyself  into  that 
breast?  He  used  to  read  (as  Simplicianus  said)  the  Holy 
Scriptures  j  most  studiously  sought,'  and  searched  into  all 
the  Christian  writings,  and  said  to  Simplicianus,  (not 
openly,  but  privately  and  as  a  friend,)  ^  Understand  that 
I  am  already  a  Christian.'  Simplicianus  answered,  ^I 
will  not  believe  it,  nor  will  I  rank  you  among  Christians, 
unless  I  see  you  in  the  Church  of  Christ.'  The  other,  in 
banter,  replied,  '■  Do  walls,  then,  make  Christians  V  And 
this  he  often  said,  that  he  was  already  a  Christian ;  and 
Simplicianus  as  often  made  the  same  answer;    and  the 


292  APPENDIX. 

conceit  of  the  ^walls'  was,  by  tlie  other,  as  often  renewed. 
For  he  feared  to  offend  his  friends,  proud  demon-worship- 
pers, from  the  height  of  whose  Babylonian  dignity,  as 
from  cedars  of  Lebanon,  which  the  Lord  had  not  yet 
broken  down,  he  supposed  the  weight  of  enmity  would 
fall  upon  him.  But  when,  by  reading  and  earnest  thought, 
he  had  gathered  firmness,  and  feared  to  be  denied  by 
Christ  before  the  holy  angels,  should  he  now  be  afraid  to 
confess  Him  before  men,  and  appeared  to  himself  guilty  of 
a  heavy  offence,  in  being  ashamed  of  the  Sacraments,  of 
the  humility  of  thy  Word,  while  he  was  not  ashamed 
of  the  sacrilegious  rites  of  those  proud  demons,  whose 
pride  he  had  imitated,  and  their  rites  adopted,  he  became 
bold-faced  against  vanity,  and  shame-faced  towards  the 
truth,  and,  suddenly  and  unexpectedly,  said  to  Simplici- 
anus,  (as  himself  told  me,)  '  Let  us  go  to  the  Church ;  I 
wish  to  be  a  Christian.'  And  not  long  after,  he  further 
gave  in  his  name  for  baptism — Eome  wondering,  the 
Church  rejoicing.  The  proud  saw,  and  were  wroth;  they 
gnashed  their  teeth  and  melted  away.  But  the  Lord  God 
was  the  hope  of  Thy  servant,  and  He  regarded  not  vani- 
ties, and  lying  madness. 

^^  In  fine,  when  the  hour  was  come  for  making  profes- 
sion of  his  faith,  (which  at  Bome,  they  ....  deliver 
from  an  elevated  place  in  the  sight  of  all  the  faithful,) 
....  the  presbyters,  he  said,  offered  Victorinus  (as  was 
done  to  such  as  seemed  likely  through  bashfulness  to  be 
alarmed,)  to  make  his  profession  more  privately :  but  he 
chose  rather  to  profess  his  salvation  in  the  presence  of  the 
holy  multitude.  '  For  it  was  not  salvation  that  he  taught 
in  rhetoric,  and  yet  that  he  had  publicly  professed.  How 
much  less,  then,  ought  he,  when  pronouncing  Thy  word, 
to  dread  Thy  meek  flock,  who  when  delivering  his  own 


APPENDIX.  293 

words,  had  not  feared  a  mad  multitude  !'  When,  then,  he 
went  up  to  make  his  profession,  all,  as  they  knew  him, 
whispered  his  name  one  to  another,  with  the  voice  of  con- 
gratulation. And  who  there  knew  him  not  ?  And  there 
ran  a  low  murmur  through  all  the  mouths  of  the  rejoicing 
multitude,  Victorinus,  Victorinus  !  Sudden  was  the  burst 
of  rapture,  that  they  saw  him;  suddenly  were  they 
hushed,  that  they  might  hear  him.  He  pronounced  the 
true  faith,  with  an  excellent  boldness,  and  all  wished  to 
draw  him  into  their  very  hearts :  yea,  by  their  love  and 
joy,  they  drew  him  hither;  such  were  the  hands  where- 
with they  drew  him.'' — (Confessions  of  Augustine,  Book 
8,  sect.  2.) 


F.— Page  77. 
That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  here  alluded  to,  and  that  the 
subsequent  "  innocent  meal ''  spoken  of  was  the  agape,  is, 
it  seems  to  me,  unquestionable.  '^  It  is  plain  here,"  says 
Bingham,  (Antiquities,  Book  15,  ch.  7,  sect.  8,)  ^Hhe 
Communion  was  first,  and  the  agape  sometime  after.''  A 
passage  from  Chrysostom,  quoted  by  him  in  another  section 
(sect.  6,)  is  decisive.  Speaking  of  the  first  Christians 
having  all  things  common,  he  says,  "  From  this  law  and 
custom  there  arose  then  another  admirable  custom  in  the 
Churches.  For  when  all  the  faithful  had  met  together, 
and  had  heard  the  sermon  and  prayers,  and  had  received 
the  Commumon,  they  did  not  immediately  return  home, 
upon  the  breaking  up  of  the  assembly,  but  the  rich  and 
wealthy  brought  meat  and  food  from  their  own  houses, 
and  called  the  poor  and  made  a  common  table,  and  a  com- 
mon dinner,  a  common  banquet  in  the  Church. — (Chrys. 
Hom.  27  in  1  Cor.  p.  559.) 

25* 


294  APPENDIX. 

a.— Pages  81,  153. 

Most  commentators,  wlio  do  not  hold  to  the  independ- 
ence of  each  Church,  quote  1  Cor.  10  :  17,  as  a  proof  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  symbol  of  that  Communion  which 
the  Christian  enjoys  with  the  whole  body  of  believers  in 
Christ,  and  not  as  a  symbol  of  Church  Communion.  How 
far  this  opinion  is  just,  we  will  briefly  consider. 

The  following  is  Macknight's  version  of  the  passage  : — 
^'  Because  there  is  one  loafj  we^  the  many^  are  one  body,  for 
we  all  participaie  of  the  one  loaf^' 

Bishop  Warburton  remarks  on  the  passage  in  question, 
'^  Our  being  partakers  of  one  bread  (or  loaf,)  in  Commu- 
nion, makes  us  many  [which  we  are  by  nature]  to  become 
by  grace  one  body  in  Christ,  the  Communion  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  uniting  the  receivers  into  one  body 
by  an  equal  distribution  of  one  common  benefit."  ^'  The 
loaves  or  rather  cakes  of  Judea,"  adds  Dr.  Bloomfield, 
after  quoting  the  above,  ^^were  usually,  especially  at  the 
Paschal  feast,  of  a  very  large  size,  so  that  a  considerable 
number  may  be  supposed  to  partake  in  common  of  one  of 
them." 

The  meaning  of  this  passage  must  turn  upon  the  sense 
we  ascribe  to  ol  Tio-k-koi-  Most  commentators  seem  to  sup- 
pose that  it  means  "  the  many,"  and  is  equivalent  to  "  all 
Christians;"  but  on  this  we  remark  : — 

1.  That  the  article  combined  with  the  plural  here,  by 
no  means  necessarily  gives  it  the  sense  of  ^'  the  many," 
and  might,  perhaps,  fairly  be  translated,  ''  many,"  as  in 
Matt.  24  :  12,  "  and  because  the  love  of  many  (t^v  TioVkCiv) 
shall  wax  cold;"  or  as  in  2  Cor.  2  :  17,  ^^  We  are  not  as 
many  (ol  Tto'KTjoi)  which  corrupt  the  word  of  God."  So 
our  English  translators  render  it  in  the  passage  we  are 


APPENDIX.  295 

considering.  Tlie  sense  would  then  be  fairly  paraphrased 
thus,  '^  Because  every  time  we  celebrate  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, there  is  one  loaf  used,  of  which  all  the  communicants 
participate,  loe  who  eat  of  it,  and  who  are  naturally  many^ 
become  thereby  symbolically  one  hody  with  the  rest  of  the 
communicants,  hecause  we  all  participate  of  that  one  loaf" 

2.  Even  if  ol  Tto-KKoi  be  translated  ^Hhe  many,'^  it  must 
still  mean  that  we  are  proved  to  be  one  body,  not  with 
^^  all  Christians,"  but  with  all  with  ivhom  ice  partake  of 
the  symbolic  elements.  The  meaning  of  rtavts^,  '  all/  in  the 
next  clause,  is  in  terms  circumscribed  to  those  who  "  par- 
ticipate of  the  same  loaf.^' 

That  by  ^' all  who  participate''  £x  tov  Iv6i  a^ifov  is  not 
primarily  intended  all  who  partake  of  one  ki^id  of  bread 
— (i.  e.,  those  through  the  whole  world  who  are  in  the  ha- 
bit of  eating  the  Sacramental  bread,  or  Christians,)  but 
rather  those  who  partake  together  of  the  same  emblems,  is 
confirmed  by  New  Testament  usage,  in  regard  to  sms  a^to?, 
the  sense  of  which  clearly  is  not  "  one  kind  of  bread,"  as 
our  English  translators  would  leave  the  impression,  but 
one^''  loaf"  of  bread. 

On  this,  I  subjoin  the  judicious  remarks  of  Macknight. 
"  The  Greek  word  o-ctIq^,  especially  when  joined  with  words 
of  number,  always  signifies  a  loaf,  and  is  so  translated 
in  our  Bibles  :  Matt.  16:9,  '^  Do  ye  not  understand,  nei- 
ther remember  the  five  (a^T'ou?)  loaves  of  the  five  thou- 
sand 1"  Matt.  4:3,  ^^  Command  that  these  stones  be 
made  (a^r'ous)  loaves"     (See  Note  1,  on  1  Cor.  10  :  17.) 

That  there  may  be  an  indirect  inference  drawn  from  the 
Apostle's  remark  that  all  those  who,  by  Divine  authority, 
partake  of  the  same  kind  of  bread  and  wine  in  the  Com- 
munion, must  sustain  a  relation  to  each  other  as  Chris- 
tians, we  do  not  deny.     They  do ;  and  so  far  the  Lord's 


296  APPENDIX. 

Supper  may  be  considered  a  symbol  of  the  Christian  one- 
ness or  Communion  of  all  who  rightly  partake,  wherever 
or  in  what  age  soever  they  may  be.  But  this  is  far 
enough  from  showing  that  this  Supper  does  not  indicate 
a  more  close,  even  a  Church  Communion  between  those 
who  partake  together  the  same  loaf.  This  latter  I  believe 
to  be  the  specific  meaning  of  the  Apostle,  certainly  no  in- 
ference contrary  to  it  can  be  drawn  from  this  passage. 
In  the  Lord's  Supper,  whenever  we  sit  down  to  it,  we 
symbolize  that  we  are  of  one  body  with  those  with  whom 
we  partake,  by  eating  of  the  same  loaf.  The  error  so 
wide  spread,  by  which  the  distinctness  of  Visible. Churches 
has  been  confounded  through  the  Universality  of  the  One 
Invisible  Church,  has  led,  I  am  convinced,  to  the  popular 
misinterpretation  of  this  passage.  That  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  a  complex  symbol,  we  have  before  shown.  In  such 
cases,  it  is  only  when  all  the  relations  symbolized,  have  a 
corresponding  reality,  that  the  symbol  is  appropriate. 


H.— Page  104. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  ^Yheelock  in  a  letter  from  England,  pub- 
lished in  the  Christian  Watchman,  dated  December,  1847, 
is  my  authority  for  these  last  facts.  He  also  says,  *^  While 
in  London,  I  casually  learned  that  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism was  to  be  administered  in  one  of  the  largest  and  most 
popular  Baptist  churches  of  that  city.  At  the  hour  ap- 
pointed, about  twilight,  on  Thursday  evening,  I  went  to 
the  chapel  to  witness  the  baptism.  The  church  contained 
rising  of  eight  hundred  members.  On  entering,  I  per- 
ceived the  lamps  were  lit,  but  few  in  attendance,  and  the 
pastor  addressing  the  people.     Eleven  were  baptized,  and 


APPENDIX.  297 

after  changing  their  raiment,  they  returned  into  the  cha- 
pel, and  received  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  I  asked 
the  administrator  why  the  baptism  was  on  a  week  day 
evening,  and  at  an  hour  when  so  few  could  attend.  He 
answered,  that  ahout  one-half  of  the  church  were  Pedo- 
baptists ;  and  for  the  peace  of  the  church,  they  were  care- 
ful to  select  an  evening  and  an  hour  when  there  was  no 
other  appointment,  not  even  for  a  committee  meeting,  or 
meeting  of  Sabbath  school  teachers,  or  Bible  class,  or  any- 
thing else,  lest  the  peace  of  the  church  might  be  disturbed 
by  the  Pedobaptist  members,  thinking  they  had  been  en- 
trapped to  secure  their  presence  at  the  baptism.  For  the 
same  reason,  he  told  me,  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  was 
given  at  the  Baptism,  instead  of  the  Communion,  on  the 
following  Sabbath,  that  nothing  might  be  said  then  that 
might  endanger  the  harmony  of  the  church.  In  some 
mixed  churches,  the  Baptist  members  have  been  disciplined 
and  excluded,  because  they  propagated  among  the  people, 
Baptist  sentiments.  In  Bedford,  one  of  John  Bunyan's 
successors  was  permitted  to  retain  his  pastoral  relations, 
only  on  condition  that  '  he  should  not  introduce  the  con- 
troversy' on  the  subject  of  Baj^tism — ^  into  the  pulpit,  nor 
into  conversation,  unless  it  was  first  mentioned  by  others.' '' 
As  a  further  illustration  of  what  must  result  from  this 
plan,  the  following  facts  are  added,  also  detailed  in  the 
same  letter.  The  Bev.  Mr.  Kinghorn  of  Norwich,  was  the 
well  known  and  able  opponent  of  Mr.  Hall  on  the  Com- 
munion question.  •  He  died,  and  has  been  succeeded  by 
Rev.  Mr.  Brock.  ^'  After  the  Rev.  Mr.  Brock  of  Norwich, 
had  revolutionized  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kinfj-horn's  church,  and 
received  into  it  Pedobaptists,  he  began  to  discipline  those 
members  that  refused  to  go  to  the  Lord's  Table  with  the 
Pedobaptist  members.    The  first  one  excluded  was  brother 


298  APPENDIX. 

Keif.  The  28  th  of  June  last,  I  perceive  this  church  by  a 
vote  of  95  to  22,  have  for  the  same  reason  excluded  ten 
more.  The  published  account  of  it  says,  ^  it  was  strongly 
objected  that  as  these  brethren  were  worthy  and  tried  men, 
they  ought  not  to  be  excluded  in  consequence  of  their 
objections  to  this  new  practice,  as  unscriptural.  It  was 
said,  in  reply,  that  the  church  did  not  exclude  them,  they 
excluded  themselves  I  by  absenting  themselves  from  the 
Lord's  Supper.'  I  have  a  full  account  of  these  melancholy 
proceedings,  but  I  forbear  to  give  them  in  detail,  as  I  have 
already  extended  this  communication  much  beyond  what  I 
at  first  intended.''  ^'  In  a  Summary  of  principles,  for  the 
government  of  a  Mixed  Church  in  St.  Andrews,  Scotland," 
the  Magazine  of  1841  says,  "  it  is  held  to  be  '  disorderly' 
and  '  subjecting  to  discipline,'  for  the  Baptists  to  use  any 
direct  influence,  either  in  public  or  in  private,  to  inculcate 
or  propagate  their  peculiar  sentiments,  by  the  circulation 
of  tracts  or  books,  by  conversation  or  otherwise  among  the 
members  of  the  church,"  and  moreover,  "  that  they  should 
abstain  from  controverting  the  sentiments  taught  from  the 
pulpit  on  the  points  of  diiference."  The  Magazine  adds, 
"We  have  heard  of  another  Mixed  Church  in  Scotland 
under  a  Baptist  pastor,  in  which  the  Independent  (Pedo- 
baptist)  members  have  made  objection  to  the  mention  of 
the  subject  from  the  pulpit."  A  Baptist  Church  in  Dub- 
lin, Ireland,  after  having  maintained  strict  communion, 
"for  about  one  hundred  and  fourteen  years,"  had  open 
communion  introduced  by  their  pastor,  Bev.  Mr.  Ford. 
He  moved  that  six  persons,  holding  strict  Baptist  princi- 
ples, one  of  whom  had  been  a  member  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  for  thirty  years,  be  expelled.  That  motion 
was  carried,  and  the  brother  adds,  "Several  years  have 
now  elapsed  since  that  occurrence,  and  the  members  thus 
expelled  have  not  returned." 


APPENDIX.  299 


J.— Page  200. 

In  Robert  Hall's  ^^  Letter  to  a  Clergyman/'  Works,  vol. 
4,  p.  630,  lie  says,  ^'  Our  sentiments  upon  the  baptismal 
rite  exempt  us  from  any  temptations  to  lay  undue  stress 
upon  it ;  we  consider  it  merely  as  the  symbol  of  a  Chris- 
tian profession,  while  you  profess  to  believe  it  regenerates 
the  partaker,  and  makes  him  a  child  of  God.'' 

The  disposition  to  submit  to  whatever  is  clearly  and  de- 
liberately perceived  to  be  the  will  of  God  on  every  subject 
is  an  essential  part  of  saving  piety,  and  therefore  is,  in 
every  case,  essential  to  salvation.  Hence  it  is  that  unwil- 
lingness, even  to  submit  to  baptism,  or  any  other  divine 
appointment,  may  be  at  times^  where  known  to  be  the  will 
of  God,  fatal  to  the  soul.  But  no  outward  act  of  confession 
(I  speak  of  the  outward  act,  as  distinct  from  the  act  of  the 
will)  can  be  essential  to  membership  in  the  invisible 
Church,  while  yet  some  outward  act  must  he  essential  to 
visible  membership. 


K.— Page  206. 

The  following  anecdote  was  communicated  to  the  Chris- 
tian Watchman,  several  years  ago,  by  the  E,ev.  Dr.  Fish- 
back  of  Lexington,  Kentucky. 

'^  Mr.  Editor : — The  following  circumstance,  which  occur- 
red in  the  State  of  Virginia,  relative  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  was 
detailed  to  me  by  Elder  Andrew  Tribble,  about  six  years 
ago,  who  since  died  when  ninety-two  or  three  years  old. 
The  facts  may  interest'  some  of  your  readers.  Andrew 
Tribble  was  the  pastor  of  a  small  Baptist  Church,  which 
held  its  monthly  meetings  at  a  short  distance  from  Mr. 


300  APPENDIX. 

Jefferson's  house,  eight  or  ten  years  before  the  American 
Revolution.  Mr.  Jefferson  attended  the  meetings  of  the 
church  several  months  in  succession ;  and  after  one  of  them, 
he  asked  Elder  Tribble  to  go  home  and  dine  with  him,  with 
which  he  complied. 

Mr.  Tribble  asked  Mr.  Jefferson  how  he  was  pleased 
with  their  Church  government?  Mr.  Jefferson  replied, 
that  it  had  struck  him  with  great  force,  and  had  interested 
him  much ;  that  he  considered  it  the  only  form  of  pure 
democracy  that  then  existed  in  the  world,  and  had  con- 
cluded that  it  would  be  the  hest  plan  of  government  for  the 
American  colonies.  This  was  several  years  before  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  To  what  extent  this  practi- 
cal exhibition  of  religious  liberty  and  equality  operated 
on  Mr.  Jefferson's  mind,  in  forming  his  views  and  prin- 
ciples of  religious  and  civil  freedom,  which  were  afterwards 
so  ably  exhibited,  I  will  not  say.'' 


L. — Page  175. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  at  the  time  of  the  com- 
mencement of  the  revival  in  Boston,  under  the  preaching 
of  Drs.  Baldwin  and  Stillman,  half  a  century  since,  there 
was  but  one  Orthodox  Congregational  Church  remaining 
in  the  city — the  Old  South ;  and  that  was  in  so  declining 
a  state  that  it  was  unable  to  sustain  a  weekly  prayer  meet- 
ing. A  few  of  the  most  spiritual  members,  by  attending 
the  Baptist  Churches,  were  aroused  to  new  sensibility,  and 
gained  courage  to  establish  a  prayer  meeting,  and  make 
other  efforts  to  establish  Gospel  preaching  among  them 
once  more.  From  this  came  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Hunt- 
ington, the  publication  of  the  ^^  Panoplist/'  the  erection 


APPENDIX.  801 

of  Park  Street  Church,  the  call  of  Dr.  G-riffin,  aud  other 
events  connected  with  the  revival  of  Orthodox  Christianity 
in  Boston.  The  number  of  Orthodox  Congregational 
Churches  in  this  city  is  now  fourteen. 

In  Geneva,  the  movement  in  favor  of  Evangelical  The- 
ology dates  from  the  winter  of  1818.  At  that  time  Robert 
Haldane,  Esq.,  of  Edinburgh,  (who  had  embraced  Baptist 
principles  about  ten  or  twelve  years  before,)  passed  the 
winter  in  Geneva.  This  excellent  man  felt  his  soul  stir- 
red within  him,  at  finding  the  University  and  all  the  pul- 
pits of  the  city  closed  against  the  Gospel.  He  invited 
several  University  students  to  meet  at  his  lodgings,  by 
nights,  for  the  study  of  the  Bible.  Some  of  them  were 
converted  as  a  consequence — and  among  them.  Merle 
D'Aubigne  I     What  followed  is  well  known. 

The  present  Evangelical  movement  in  Germany,  which 
is  restoring  Apostolic  Churches  to  the  land  of  Luther,  has 
a  similar  origin.  It  dates  from  the  baptism  of  Mr.  Oncken 
and  six  others  at  Hamburg,  in  1834.  Besides  a  Church 
of  500  members  in  that  city,  about  sixty  more,  of  similar 
scriptural  purity,  martyr  zeal,  and  missionary  spirit,  have 
already  arisen  in  Central  Europe  as  the  result,  and  are 
rapidly  multiplying  amid  all  the  political  storms  and  con- 
vulsions of  the  times. 

One  more  fact  may  be  added.  The  First  Congregational 
Church  in  Salem,  Mass.,  from  which  Roger  Williams  was 
driven  in  1636,  (together  with  the  First  in  Boston,  which 
did  the  deed,)  is  now,  and  long  has  been  Unitarian ;  while 
the  First  Baptist  Church  in  Providence,  R.  I.,  founded  by 
Roger  Williams,  always  has  beun,  and  still  is.  Evangelical  ; 
and  last  year,  among  other  charities,  contributed  about 
^•iOOO  to  the  Foreign  Missionary  Enterprise. 

26 


302  APPENDIX. 

Such  facts  have  some  significance.     He  is  a  wise  man 
who  learns  wisdom  even  in  the  school  of  Experience. 

J.  N.  B. 


M.— Page  244. 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  has  col- 
lected the  most  melancholy  and  ample  proof  of  this  state- 
ment from  the  Fathers  of  the  Third  and  Fourth  centuries, 
though  this  was  far  from  his  design. 

How  this  matter  appeared  to  the  "Waldenses  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  is  most  forcibly  and  concisely  expressed  in 
the  "  Treatise  concerning  Antichrist" — a  book  most 
carefully  cherished  among  that  ancient  people,  and  which 
bears  date,  according  to  Perrin,  as  early  as  1120.  The 
last  words  we  shall  quote  are  omitted  by  Milner,  in  his 
extracts,  (Church  History,  Vol.  11.  p.  61,  Phil.  Ed.,)  for 
what  reason  we  know  not.  They  are,  however,  too  memo- 
rable to  be  forgotten.  We  take  them  from  Jones'  History 
of  the  Church,  (pp.  337-338,  Phil.  Ed.) 

After  sketching  the  origin  of  Antichrist  "  in  the  times 
of  the  Apostles,"  and  his  comparative  weakness  "in  his 
infancy,"  the  Treatise  proceeds  to  say,  "  But  growing  up 
in  his  members,  that  is,  in  his  blind  and  dissembling 
ministers,  and  in  worldly  subjects,  he  at  length  arrived  at 
full  maturity;  when  men  whose  hearts  were  set  upon 
the  world,  blind  in  the  faith,  multiplied  in  the  Church, 
and  hy  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  got  the  power  of 
both  into  their  hands.  Christ  never  had  an  enemy  like  this, 
so  able  to  pervert  the  way  of  truth  into  falsehood,  insomuch 
that  the  true  Church  with  her  children  is  trodden  under  foot  J" 


APPENDIX.  303 

After  specifying  tlie  perversions  in  the  objects  of  worship, 
particularly  in  the  idolatrous  adoration  of  the  Eucharist, 
the  Treatise  thus  describes  that  perversion  of  Baptism  of 
which  Antichrist  is  guilty,  and  points  out  its  funda- 
mental and  all-pervading  evils.  '^  He  teaches  to  baptize 
children  into  the  faith,  and  attributes  to  this  the  work  of 
regeneration;  thus  confounding  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  regeneration  with  the  external  rite  of  baptism ; 
and  on  this  foundation  bestows  Orders,  and  indeed  grounds 
all  his   Christianity.''  j,  j^   ^ 


VALUABLE  BOOKS 

PUBLISHED    BY   THE 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETf 

118    ARCH    STREET, 

PHILADELPHIA. 


COMPLETE    WORKS    OF   ANDREW   FULLER. 

THREE    VOLUMES,    OCTAVO. 

The  complete  Works  of  the  Rev.  Andrew  Fuller;  with 
a  Memoir  of  the  author,  and  a  likeness.  Price  $6  00 
in  cloth  or  sheep  ;  $6  50  in  half  calf  or  turkey  morocco. 

"  Fuller's  Works  might,  without  any  very  remarkable  impro- 
priety, be  designated  an  Encyclopedia  of  Polemic,  Doctrinal, 
and  Practical  Theology.  With  giant  steps  he  traverses  the 
whole  empire  of  revelation,  and  of  reason  as  its  handmaid. 
He  is  the  Bacon  of  Scripture.  It  is  a  Library  in  itself.  The 
Bible  and  these  Works  will  suffice  to  make  any  man  a  first  rate 
theologian." — Rev.  Dr.  Campbell  in  the  London  Christian  Wit- 
ness. 

BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

BY    ALEXANDER    CARSON. 

This  work  contains  a  brief  Memoir  of  the  author, 
with  his  reply  to  Rev.  Dr.  Miller,  &c.  One  octavo 
volume  of  .550  pages.  Price  $1  50  in  sheep  or  cloth ; 
^1  60  in  half  calf  or  half  turkey  morocco. 

"  Let  those  who  think  that  the  solemn  immersion  of  believers 
in  water  is  not  baptism,  answer,  if  they  can,  fairly  and  withou' 
evasion,  the  learned,  candid,  and  decisive  work  of  Mr.  Carson.'- 
—Rev.  B.  H.  Draper,  LL.  D. 

HISTORY    OF     BAPTISM. 

BY    ISAAC    T.     HINTON. 

A  History  of  Baptism,  from  inspired  and  uninspired 
writings.  This  is  a  beautiful  edition,  from  new  stereo- 
type plates.  It  has  also  been  published  in  England. 
l2mo.  348  pages.     Price  65  cents  in  cloth  or  sheep. 


THE    TERMS    OF    COMMUNION, 

BY    ROBERT    B.     C.    HOWEIiL. 

A  beautiful  edition  from  new  stereotype  plates,  and 
the  price  reduced  to  60  cents.  Its  wide  circulation  in 
this  country,  and  its  republication  in  England,  are  the 
best  testimonials  of  its  usefulness. 

THE    PILGRIM'S    PROGRESS. 

BT    JOHN    BUNTAN. 

This  edition  contains  a  likeness  of  the  author  and  four 
engravings.     Price  60  cents. 

THE     HOLY     WAR. 

BT    JOHN    BUNTAN, 

A  new  edition  with  six  engravings.     Price  60  cents. 
*'  One  of  the  greatest  books  ever  made." — Albert  Barnes. 

MARRIED    LIFE.— A    WEDDING    GIFT. 

BY.  JOSEPH    BELCHER. 

An  elegant  miniature  volume  of  128  pages,  with  gilt 
edges  and  ornamental  covers.     Price   30  cents. 

SCRIPTURE    GUIDE    TO    BAPTISM. 

BY    R.     PENGILLY. 

The  many  thousands  of  this  able  work  which  have 
been  sold  attest  its  excellence.  It  contains  90  pages 
Price  25  cents  in  cloth,  and  6J  in  paper  covers. 

PENG  ILLY' S    GUIDE    AND   BOOTH'S    VINDICATION. 

This  volume  contains  two  treatises.  First,  Pengilly's 
Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism.  Second,  Booth's  Vindica- 
tion of  the  Baptists  from  the  charge  of  bigotry,  in  refus- 
ing communion  at  the  Lord's  table  to  Paedobaptists. 
Price,  25  cents  in  cloth,  and  20  cents  in  half  binding. 

SACRIFICE    AND    ATONEMENT. 

BY    SAMUEL    W.    LTND. 

One  volume,  13  mo.     231  pages.     Price  60  cents. 

TRACTS. 

One  hundred  and  seventy-one  Tracts  are  published 
by  the  Society  and  sold  at  the  rate  of  15  pages  for  a 
cent;  375  pages  for  25  cents  ;   1500  pages  for  one  dollar. 


FREY'S    SORIPTURE    TYPES. 

The  Scripture  Types.  A  course  of  Lectures  by 
Joseph  Samuel  C.  F.  Frey.  A  new  edition,  in  two  vol- 
unaes.  Vol.  I  contains  306  pages  ;  Vol.  II.  320  pages. 
Price,  50  cents  per  volume.  Also,  in  one  volume,  for 
|1.00,  in  cloth,  sheep,  or  half  calf. 

"  The  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  author,  as  a  natural  des- 
cendant of  Abraham  ;  he  having  sustained,  for  a  number  of 
years,  the  office  of  a  Jewish  Rabbi,  for  which  he  had  been  regu- 
larly educated;  gave  him  an  opportunity  of  obtaining  a  supe- 
rior knowledge  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  of  the  Jewish 
ceremonies  and  customs,  both  ancient  and  modem,  thus  enabl- 
ing him  to  embody  in  these  Lectures  much  valuable  information 
This  work  should  be  found  in  the  Libraries  of  Bible  Classes  and 
Sunday  schools."— <Spe«cer  H.  Cone,  D.D. 

"  Having  carefuUy  read  this  work  of  Rev.  C.  F.  Frey,  I  do 
very  cordially  unite  in  recommending  it  as  one  of  much  value. 
It  IS,  though  abounding  in  information,  highly  devotional  and 
practical  in  its  character."—  William  Ji.  Williams,  D.D. 

THE  BAPTIST  HARP. 
The  Baptist  Harp  :  a  new  collection  of  Hymns  for 
the  Closet,  the  Family,  Social  Worship  and  Revivals. 
It  contains  583  Hymns  and  5  Doxologies.  Two  sets  of 
stereotype  plates  have  been  prepared,  large  and  small. 
The  pocket  edition  is  only  25  cents.  The  medium  size 
(printed  from  the  same  plates,  but  with  a  wide  margin,) 
30  cents.  The  larger  edition,  35  cents.  Various  styles 
of  ornamental  binding,  according  to  price,  from  35  cents 
to  $2.00. 

"  We  hesitate  not  to  say  that  in  some  important  respects,  we 
must  give  it  a  decided  preference  to  any  volume  of  the  kind  we 
have  ever  yet  seen.''— Christian  Review,  Boston,  Mass. 

"We  are  willing  to  pronounce  it  unsurpassed,  nay  unequalled  " 
—Southern  Baptist,  Charleston,  S.  C. 

THE     DEACONSHIP. 

The  Deaconship,  by  Robert  B.  C.  Howell,  D.  D- 
In  nine  chapters  the  author  shows  the  origin  and  nature 
of  the  Deacon's  office,  the  qualifications  for  the  office. 
&c.     154  pages,  18mo.     Price,  30  cents 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 
The  Scriptural  and  Historical  Arguments  for  Infant 
Baptism  examined  ;  by  J.  Torrey  Smith,  A.  M.     An 


able  work  on  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision,  with  a  re- 
view of  the  New  Testament  Arguments,  and  thorough 
examination  of  the  Historical  Evidence  derived  from 
the  Christian  writers  of  the  first  five  centuries. 
COMMUNION. 

BY     T.      F.      0TJBTI8. 

Communion;  or  the  Distinction  between  Christian 
and  Church  Fellowship,  and  between  Communion  and 
its  Symbols,  embracing  a  review  of  Robert  Hall's  six 
arguments,  and  the  arguments  of  Baptist  W.  Noel  in 
favor  of  mixed  communion.  A  work  logical  in  argu 
ment,  calm  in  tone,  elegant  in  style,  devout  in  spirit, 
and  deeply  imbued  with  the  mind  of  Christ. 

THE    BAPTIST   MANUAL. 

A  Selection  of  Doctrinal  and  Practical  Tracts,  exhi- 
biting the  sentiments  and  practices  of  the  denomination. 
12mo.  384  pages.     50  cents. 

CLOSING-    SCENES. 

Closing  Scenes,  or  Death  Beds  of  Young  Persons. 
A  book  abounding  in  narratives  of  thrilling  interest. 
194  pages,  18  mo.  Price,  25  cents,  in  half-binding ;  30 
cents,  in  cloth. 

BAXTER'S    SAINTS'     REST. 

A  beautiful  edition ;  bound  in  cloth  444  pages.  40 
cents 

BAXTER'S    CALL. 
Baxter's  Call  to  the  Unconverted.    18  mo.,  177  pages. 
15  cents. 

PIKE'S    GUIDE    TO    YOUNG-    DISCIPLES. 

An  excellent  work  for  Young  Converts.  465  pages. 
40  cents. 

BAPTI     T    FAMILY    LIBRARY. 

In  six  volumes,  in  uniform  binding.     Price  $3.75. 

1.  Hinton's  History  of  Baptism.         4.  Bxxnyan's  Holy  War. 

2.  Howell  on  Communion.  5.  Baptist  Manual. 

3.  Bunyan's  Pilgi'im's  Progress.         6.  Booth's  Reign  of  Grace. 

SUNDAY    SCHOOL    BOOKS. 
The  Society  has  issued  many  interesting  volumes  for 
Sunday    School   Libraries.     The   publications   of    the 
American  Sunday  School  Union,  and  of  the  American 
Tract  Society  are  also  kept  for  sale. 


Princeton 


Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01185  4116 


